Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/01

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

Are stamps of the Ottoman Empire in the public domain?

I had recently found this gallery of stamps from the Ottoman Empire of which a few aren’t available on Wikimedia Commons. As I am not familiar with how copyright © laws with stamps work I wonder if images from this website are acceptable.

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They are likely to be in public domain as {{PD-TR}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Not {{PD-Ottoman Empire}}? W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the handy link, and I will sort the images to upload later. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To copyvio or not to copyvio

I noticed File:Payconiq_logo.png was nominated for deletion. Before that, someone tagged it as copyvio with rationale "https://www.noah-conference.com/wordpress/images/Payconiq.png". This link provided solid proof the image is also hosted on some Wordpress site. Yes, I know. That's why that copyvio was removed and replaced by a nomination. Makes sense. So I looked around a bit, found a rationale that I believe is sufficient for a copyvio and tagged it as copyvio. Now @Sanandros: (who had opened the nomination for deletion) reverted my copyvio, stating "As long as the delation request is running pls don't mark it as copyvio". In some way I can understand wishing to stick to one process, but if we can't copyvio anything that has an open deletion discussion.. What I'm trying to say is: can I upload images of Donald Duck and nominate them for deletion, making them immune for copyvio? W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@W3ird N3rd: No, I think it was wrong to revert your tag. You are welcome to post to the DR and discuss with Sanandros at a more appropriate venue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps Sanandros meant to decline your copyvio speedy as an Admin, but that is not evident from the edit summary.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't even know he's an administrator. HyperGaruda just added the rationale to the DR so I don't have much to add otherwise. I was just wondering if there is some rule saying you can't copyvio something that has a DR. I'm not sure it is wise for an admin to revert a copyvio for something they started the DR themselves for. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
DRs can be closed speedily (there's a note to this effect on COM:DR), so an open DR doesn't necessarily protect the file for seven days. I think it's sensible to keep discussion in one place, so once there is a DR open for a file, it seems right to me to put a {{Vote speedy}} in there rather than adding another template to the file page. --bjh21 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the existence of that template. Now it all makes a lot more sense, thanks. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Neither was I. Thanks, bjh21!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Motor Vehicle Hook Turk.jpg

The licence tag on this image references section 182A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Australia). If I'm interpreting this correctly, subsection (2) of the legislation would prohibit commercial use of the image (this was also stated on the licence tag), which violates the licensing policy. Could someone experienced look into this? Thanks. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 11:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

IANAL, but yes, you are absolutely right. 182A subsection (2) is pretty much the same as CC-NC. For this particular image you could debate if it may be covered by PD-shape or PD-ineligable. W3ird N3rd (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
This is too complicated to get away with either of those templates but it is an ideal image that could be drawn afresh if you make a request at the Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Ww2censor (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
...provided you make it clear that you want a new drawing, based on the concept, not a direct copy or a trace, to avoid infringing the copyright. -- Begoon 12:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Already working on it. My image is based on several hook turn images, but no direct trace anywhere. Here's the first version: File:Hook turn 1.png W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
That was quick! And my request was ready to go too.
Also gonna include File:Bicycle Hook Turn.jpg here as it was uploaded in the same circumstances. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 13:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think even subsection (1) qualifies -- that is more of a fair use clause, since it's only valid for one person for a particular purpose, and not making it available via mass reproduction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Ooh yeah. It doesn't even include derivative works, does it? – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pizza1016: Here you go: File:Hook turn bicycle.png and File:Hook turn car.png. If you're not entirely happy with them, you can shove it I mean you can fix it yourself. Nevermind the cow. W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: Thank you! There's plenty of tourist horse carriages down here in the Melbourne CBD. Cows strolling down the streets of the city would be a much better feature IMO. Now that I think about it, I haven't seen the horses perform a hook turn yet. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pizza1016: I think a hook turn actually wouldn't be a bad idea for a horse carriage. Symbols_of_road_signs_of_Germany actually has two: File:Sinnbild_-_Gespannfuhrwerke,_StVO_1970.svg and File:Sinnbild_Gespannfuhrwerk,_StVO_2004.svg in case that is actually done somewhere and you want to make an illustration for it. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Status update: tagged both File:Motor Vehicle Hook Turk.jpg and File:Bicycle Hook Turn.jpg for deletion. Also, the illustration workshop request was reopened. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Solkka/News In Star images

So, my first trip down license review lane and it appears that I have fallen into a confusing situation. In regards to:

  1. File:'멜로홀릭' 제작발표회 경수진(1).jpg
  2. File:'멜로홀릭' 제작발표회 경수진 (2).jpg

I'd like some second opinions. The outcome of which could impact the entirety of Category:Images from Solkka. If you look at the original source link (that I struck out during my first run though) you'll see a watermark down at the bottom for News In Star. I found the original image on that site which includes an "All Rights Reserved" message and included that link on the file pages above. My original thought was, "ah ha, license laundering" and I proceeded to mark the image as such. Then going back, I noticed that the home page of that site (http://solkka.tistory.com/) lists it as Solka [news in star]. Where it gets even more confusing is that other, license confirmed, images such as File:Park Ye-eun to a Music Bank recording in July 2016.jpg has a Solkka watermark on them. Not a News In Star watermark. Keep in mind that this is all a Google translate since I don't actually read Korean. Thoughts? License laundering or not? I can't find any mention of the Solkka tistory site on the News In Star site (http://www.newsinstar.com/) but I could be missing something since again, I don't speak Korean and I'm relying on a machine translation. --Majora (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Derivative Work

Could we assume this image a derivative work (from this picture)? MasoodHA (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure whether a painting can be a derivative work of a photo? It is not an exact copy of the photo in question. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure it can, in the same way that a painting can be derivative of another painting. That the copy is not exact (i.e. not a “faithful reproduction”) means it accrues its own (partial) copyright, but doesn’t make it any less derivative.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I think these pictures must be deleted (see 1 and 2):

Nader Mahdavi https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nader_Mahdavi_by_talkhandak.jpg http://khateratshohada.mihanblog.com/post/11652

Ibrahim zakzaky https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ibrahim_zakzaky._by_Mbazri.jpg http://qudsonline.ir/news/328280/

Mahmud Saremi https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mahmud_Saremi_by_Mbazri.jpg https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1393/05/17/

Majid Majidi https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Majid_Majidi_by_Mbazri.jpg http://banifilm.ir/%D9%85%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%B4%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%81%DB%8C/

Abdulmalik Alhouthi https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abdulmalik_Alhouthi_by_Mbazri.jpg https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/420012

Jihad Imad Mughniyah https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jihad_Imad_Mughniyah_by_Mbazri.jpg http://www.shafaf.ir/fa/news/302638/

Sheykh Ali Salman https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sheykh_Ali_Salman_by_Mbazri.jpg http://fa.alkawthartv.com/news/101605

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mostafa_Ahmadi_Roshan_by_Mbazri.jpg

Hosein Hamedani https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hosein_Hamedani_by_Mbazri.jpg

Mohammad mofatteh https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad_mofatteh_by_talkhandak.jpg http://asheghanekhamosh.blogfa.com/tag/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C-%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%B4%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AD http://hamedan.navideshahed.com/fa/news/400669/

Majid Shahriari https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Majid_Shahriari.jpg http://zanjan.navideshahed.com/fa/news/415576/

Imad Mughniyah https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Imad_Mughniyah.jpg http://security-forces.blogfa.com/post/8

Mohammad-Taqi Bahjat https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Mohammad-Taqi_Bahjat.jpg http://www.hawzah.net/fa/article/view/93054
MasoodHA (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For any of these you still need to figure out if the original photo may be available with a compatible license. If the photographer works for a government or state-owned organization that is quite possible. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: I checked and just this picture (for this painting) is free that I didn't include. MasoodHA (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

VOA and static images

Regarding template:voa, when I follow the link to VOA's terms of use, it states that "text, audio and video material" are PD. A bit further on it gives a list of potentially non-PD materials, i.e. "text, video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material". Does the lack of an explicit mention of "images" in the PD statement mean that photographs/static imagery are not PD? And that we here at Commons are thus limited to uploading text, audio and (moving) videos? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted. template:PD-USGov-VOA says VOA is part of the federal government. Assuming that's correct anything produced exclusively by VOA, regardless of format, is in the public domain. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pat O'Keef(f)e photos

This has to do with the following files: File:Pat Okeeffe young and old.jpg, File:O'Keeffe vs Allum.jpg, File:Harry Reeve.jpg, File:O'Keeffe vs Sullivan.jpg, File:O'keeffe vs Sullivan.jpg, File:O'keeffe cigarette card.jpg, File:Bandsman Blake.jpg, File:O'Keeffe fight record part 1.jpg, and File:O'keeffe's fight record part 2.jpg.

These are all files uploaded as "own work" by Okeeffemarc. I believe the uploader took the photos himself using his iPhone of images found in a book. The uploader appears to be releated to en:Pat O'Keefe and the photos originally appeared in a book about O'Keefe (Pat O'Keeffe: A Biography by Alan Stratton) according to this old version of the article. Although the iPhone photos might be derivatives which the uploader can license as "own work", I'm not sure about the copyright status of the original photos. According to the file names, they appear to be pre-1923; however, the book they appear in appears to have been published sometime in the 1980s. Any ideas how to sort these images out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

cropping copyrighted material

I recently cropped out non-free images from File:N-decemspinosa.jpg (per the source, p. 141, the diagrams at the bottom were "modified after Caldwell, 1979, adapted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature, © 1979"). Is there a template or way to hide/delete the previous version? Thanks. -Animalparty (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Animalparty I use {{Speedy}} describing exactly the required action. It works :) so I never looked for another template.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  Done Yann (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! Animalparty (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

How much "Sharing" does "Share Alike" Require?

I am helping develop a curriculum (a book) containing several educational lessons for teachers. We sell the book to partnering organizations who then distribute it to educators. My question is about using images that include "Share Alike" as part of the Creative Commons (CC) licensing agreement.

If we include in one of the lessons in the curriculum a photograph accessed through Wikimedia commons that was originally licensed with a Share Alike license, such as CC-BY-SA-3.0, would my organization be required to in turn "share" the entire lesson to anyone in the future who wanted access? Or does the Share Alike requirement only apply to the one modified graphic (with the CC-BY-SA-3.0 designation) that we included within the lesson? If the requirement only applies to the single graphic, that is no problem. However, if the entire lesson is considered a work that is built upon one "Share Alike" graphic (even though the graphic only plays a minor role in the larger lesson), and if the intent of the Share Alike CC license is that the whole larger work would also be Share Alike, that would be a barrier for us in using the graphic.

Thoughts? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlefebre (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the license, and if you're still uncertain, ask the author. The license is between you and the author.
That said, by my understanding, nothing in the CC-BY-SA requires you to distribute anything to anyone you don't want to. You are merely required to permit people you give the work to use it under the CC-BY-SA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess the question can be put, in terms of the licence, as “Is a publication that includes an illustration deemed to be an Adaptation of that illustration?” Assuming that the photo is separately credited (of course with a link to the licence as required), and explicitly exempted from the copyright terms covering the lesson as a whole, I would say not. Any elements of the lesson that are inextricably added or connected to the illustration (callouts, for example) should be considered to be comprised in a derivative work and therefore included under the BY-SA conditions, but the remainder can be issued under different conditions. (Disclaimer: like most people here, IANAL and ideally you should seek legal advice to be certain.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mlefebre: In addition to the above good advice, negotiation with the photographer uploader might produce a cleaner look and a clearer legal situation for your book and publisher, and possibly a higher resolution image.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Simple instructions on how to delete a photo

I have mistakenly uploaded 2 photos that are copyrighted. I received nasty messages about potential copyright violation. I would like to simpy delete these photos from Commons.

I have searched the Wiki for instructions on this seemingly simple operation, but no luck.

Can anyone tell me how to delete my uploaded photo from Commons?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve907 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Steve907: the operators will process it now. You should not be anxious about a honest mistake. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Steve907: For future reference: Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. You can add {{speedydelete|Oops I uploaded copyrighted photos!}} to the page of the file in question. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status of a video of a pirate broadcast/signal intrusion

I'm wondering what the copyright status of this video of the Max Headroom incident is, so that I may post it to the main page if it's acceptable. I suspect it would be in the public domain, since, after all, it is a pirate broadcast, but I'm worried that the watermark in the bottom left, as well as the relatively lengthy Doctor Who segments at the beginning and end, might change the copyright status of the video, but at the same time, maybe those could be considered fair use? I have no idea, if you have any opinion it would be appreciated. Myconix (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The watermark is irrelevant: it's just text, not creative and it could be removed anyway. You can't post it here though. Commons is no place for fair use, the Doctor Who segments are too lengthy for COM:DM (although we could cut them short) but most important: just because it's a pirate broadcast doesn't mean whoever broadcasted it has waived his (or her? how could you tell?) copyright. Unless you know who created that part and can confirm they released it with a compatible license, don't upload it here. W3ird N3rd (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright for Collection of Banned Books by Siku Quanshu

@Midleading: intends to upload 《四庫禁燬書叢刊》, which is a collection of banned books by Siku Quanshu. The collection was published in 2000. It contains photocopies of public domain materials. Example. Is it OK to upload the entire collection?--維基小霸王 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@維基小霸王: Looks like just scanned text to me. @Midleading: should maybe consider to upload this to Wikibooks instead. (assuming it's not already there!) I don't know their copyright rules. Assuming these are photocopies of books published before 1923, Commons would cover them under {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-scan}}. (assuming copyright in China has expired as well) But I suspect Wikibooks is a better place for them so you should look at their rules. W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping by. Wikibooks hosts textbooks written by volunteers and Wikisource hosts original text curated by volunteers. Therefore Wikisource rather than Wikibooks is an ideal place for these texts to be transcribed. Also read w:Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_Commons#Why_move_files_to_Commons?, please.--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Right. According to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Beginner%27s_guide_to_adding_texts you should indeed upload the scans to commons. I don't know how old the books are, I can't tell you if they are in the public domain both in China and the US. If they are I believe they can be uploaded here. Having been scanned is covered by PD-scan. Being a collection probably makes no difference, but I can't tell if there is for example a new and original intro for each book that could be copyrighted. There could also be a problem if the scan is actually from a post-1923 edition of a book. But my Mandarin is a little rusty.. ;-) W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of Photographic Image and Ownership/Copyright

The subject of a Wikipedia page has asked me to carry out edits and improvements on her behalf. One of her requests is to add a photographic image of herself, which is owned by her. I am struggling to work out which process to use in order to add the image file (another user has already added an image, which she is not keen on, and she wishes to supplement the image with one she has chosen). She owns the 'copyright' but I cannot work out how to confirm this in the upload process!

I am a relatively new user so all help/advice welcome. L13hT5p0Ut

You can finish your messages here with ~~~~, they will convert into a signature.
From the upload form:

If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.

W3ird N3rd (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

en:File:Marvin Shields.jpeg

I'm wondering if anyone from Commons can help clarify the licensing of the non-free file uploaded locally to Wikipedia. If it can be converted to {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, then it can be moved to Commons; so, I'm also asking here for assistance. Does anyone know how to confirm whether this was taken by a member of the US Navy as part of his/her official duties? Relevant discussion on Wikipedia can be found en:WP:MCQ#File:Marvin Shields.jpeg. FWIW, if Commons has no problem accepting this as PD, then the license can simply be converted accordingly and the file moved to Commons. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: http://usnavymuseum.org/Ex10_MOH.asp, which features this photo, is part of the US Navy Museum, housed at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC. If they don't credit this photo, it's a fair bet it's an official US Navy photo taken by a US Navy employee in the course of duties, and thus subject to {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. A bigger version with shoulders is at http://www.vvmf.org/Wall-of-Faces/47181/MARVIN-G-SHIELDS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Larger version at https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/USN-1119000/USN-1119884.html which says it is now at the National Archives, which also indicates PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
And yes, the usage of the photo in this book (page 380) says it was an official U.S. Navy photograph from NARA's archives (photo credit pages, 399 and 400). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help sort this out Carl. One thing about the first link (the history.navy.mil one) you found is that it says the photo was taken in July 1966, but Shields was killed in 1965. This probably is just a mistake made by the website, but I'm not sure if it's something which affects the file's licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably just a mistake by the website. NARA probably just identified the archive it was from as being from 1960-1969, given the dates on the history.navy.mil page, so the 1966 was probably their mistake. Licensing not affected. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Carl, and thanks for clarifying at WP:MCQ as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming PD-1923 and related templates

As of today, we are in the final year of the 20-year copyright "freeze" in the U.S. One year from today, works published in 1923 will expire in the U.S., making the "1923" part of the template names somewhat of an anachronism, as the rule going forward will be 95 years from publication (or CURRENTYEAR-95 in templates). I believe most of the main templates already use {{Not-PD-1923-min-year}} or a similar expression so the displayed values will be correct (though as of today, the "max|1923" part of the expressions is no longer necessary). I think there are probably a number of places where 1923 is still hardcoded, like {{URAA artist}} or template documentation using a quick search, or oddball cases like {{Arquivo Nacional PD-license}} which has a "1923" parameter, which will need to be cleaned up if renamed. But the value is still hardcoded in all the template names.

Do we want to rename all these templates? PD-US-95 would seem to be a better name for the main template, but there are lots of others like PD-old-auto-1923 which would also need renaming if we go this route. We have all year to do it, since during 2018 both "1923" and "PD-US-95" are both accurate in their naming. Or we could wait until 2019, I suppose, since the displayed values will still be largely correct and the renaming need would be more obvious then. I am not sure if simple renames along with Delinker command requests would be enough, or if there would need to be more specialized bot work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it now clear that a new law extending the copyright will be passed?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's inevitable that a new copyright extension will be passed this year. In fact, it's probably the only issue that both Republicans and Democrats will agree on. (The previous Copyright Term Extension Act was passed by the U.S. Senate unanimously!) If somehow I'm wrong, I would suggest re-proposing this a year from now. Kaldari (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have not heard of anything concrete afoot. While U.S. politics are inherently unpredictable right now, I have serious doubts that we will pass another extension anytime soon. The last time, the main argument was to "catch up" to Europe and increase terms such that U.S. protection in Europe is extended due to their rule of the shorter term (a rule which is sort of designed to encourage shorter-term countries to increase their term, really). I'm not sure there are enough good arguments this time -- Disney notwithstanding. There are rumblings of EU copyright changes, though not on term -- they want to find a way to protect newspapers more, and also to force online sites to catch piracy faster apparently. I also see calls for Canada to go to 70pma, which they are being forever pressured to do by the U.S. and Europe. But nothing for the U.S. If anything happens, I really would not expect it this year, and I would expect some decently serious resistance if it is brought up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
do not know why you say extension is "inevitable". our discussion with committee staff, indicated it was not being considered, or bill in the hopper. (call me naive if you will). i would plan on no extention. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
see also https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-its-not-planning-another-copyright-extension-push/?comments=1&post=34590723&mode=quote Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
What, are you pushing for one? We have all sorts of PMA templates, despite the fact that countries can and have extended their copyright laws, and in fact many of them did it not too long before the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension occurred, or have since then. The last copyright extension was hotly fought, if a little too late; let us draw a line in the land and declare our willingness to fight if they dare bring up another extension, instead of folding before there's even talk of a fight. What was passed twenty years ago in Congress, especially in what is in many ways Internet legislation, says little about what will pass today.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on this issue for awhile. I've compiled what I think is a good start for the list of templates, categories, and associated pages that use "1923" when referring to a date of copyright exipration that would need to be changed. I'm in favor of adopting "US-expired" or "expired" in place of 1923, so templates would be something like {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-expired}}. I was originally planning on bringing this issue up in Q4 2018 after it was clearer if the US would once again extend its copyright term. I'm an optimist on this issue — I think they will not. —RP88 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah great. Technically "not renewed" is a form of expired, but that may be another way to do it. PD-old-auto-expired I don't think is great, because the last part refers specifically to the US but there is nothing in the name which indicates that (PD-old also indicates expired). That was sort of inherent in "1923" before, but we will lose that with this approach. PD-old-auto-US-expired maybe. PD-old-auto-US-95 or PD-old-auto-US95 would be a bit shorter though, if in danger of further law changes requiring another rename. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually World politics are inherently unpredictable right now. Anyway, If no country leader will show how big is the nuclear button he owns we can discuss this question in the last months of this year. There is no rush--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I uploaded my first work to Project Gutenberg in 2001, shortly after completing their collection of PD Edna St. Vincent Millay books. I've been waiting eighteen years for this, for new works to enter the PD in the US. There's no need to rush it, but some of us are really excited about new works in the US public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course you have a point. But renaming or not the template does not not worth a red cent in changing the legal status of new works to enter the PD in the US :)--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Kafka's Great Wall of China

You have the first publication of Kafka's "Great Wall of China" (1930 in a magazine, Der Morgen) available, the screenshots, with a Creative Commons license. I know that copyright has expired in Europe (as Kafka died in 1924, so 1924 plus 70 is 1994). Has copyright also expired in the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddmagos (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just under the wire, so to speak: having become copyright-free in the country of origin as of 1995 (see COM:URAA) makes it free in the USA as well.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Toddmagos: If you have such a scan, please upload it! Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Boxer Pat O'Keef(f)e cigarette card.jpg

This file as well as File:Pat O'Keeffe on an American Cigarette Card.jpg are related to the ones listed in COM:VP/C#Pat O'Keef(f)e photos. These two files come from this webpage of the en:New York Public Library. These files are licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but the file's are not licensed as such on the source website. Infact, the NYPL actually states "The copyright and related rights status of this item has been reviewed by The New York Public Library, but we were unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the item. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use.", which seems to imply that they don't know how the files should be copyright. The card is dated to 1916 and the country of origin is given as the UK, so I am wondering if these should be converted to {{PD-UK-unknown}} or some other suitible PD license instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

PD-1923 and PD-UK-unknown, yes. Probably only a literary copyright there (and typographical arrangement for the UK), all of which seem to be long-gone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Carl. Which license should be used for which file? Do you also by chance have any suggestions on how to resolve COM:VP/C#Pat O'Keef(f)e photos? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see there were two. That looks like the front and back of the card, with no author information, so it was published anonymously. So those two tags would apply to both those files. As for some of those others... hrm. Anything published before 1923 would be OK for en-wiki, but we may at least need the credit info from the source book to see if any authors are noted or any sources are noted. They are I'm sure all PD-1923, as most of them look to be rather old, but you'd prefer *some* indication of anonymous publication. The picture of an older O'Keefe may be particularly problematic -- if that was from the 1950s, and was first published in the UK, it is probably under copyright in both countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again Carl. I've started a DR for the young-old photo at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Okeeffe young and old.jpg for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Architect Ulisse Stacchini in PD?

Hello, as the this person died in 1947, shall his works, notably the Central Station in Milan, be free from the beginning of 2018 (+70 rule)? Probably there are several deleted photos of his works. Andrzej Otrębski (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've searched old deletion requests, and there only appear to be three relevant ones:
So the only things that might be undeletable are stadium photos that show only Stacchini's work and none of Ragazzi's. --bjh21 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
could modify off the warning here Category:Stadio Giuseppe Meazza; migrate italian photos here [1], [2]. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Videos containing copyrighted imagery

I'm aware of a previous discussion about de minimis in video, and am wondering what's the best way to handle video that contains derivative copyrighted imagery. I don't know much about video editing, but presumably the screen could be blacked out, or cut entirely, during the time when derivative/copyrighted material is displayed. Case in point., this video contains several full screen screenshots lasting for more than a few seconds, for example at 0:15, 12:38 21:58, 24:10 (additionally, this image from the same presentation is predominantly composed of likely copyrighted text). Should videos like this be tagged for immediate deletion, or submitted to, say Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop with a request to remove derivative content? Animalparty (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

12:38 is text, but she also reads the text out loud and probably refers to it later on so some extensive cutting would be needed to remove that. At 25:48 I see the album cover from Kanye West ‎- The Life Of Pablo for 14 seconds.
In the screenshot, I doubt de minimis will apply because the image will be almost useless when you remove the text. In the video, I think it's either all de minimis or there is little point in keeping it here. Extensive editing to remove all the screenshots and the quote she reads out loud will completely break the flow. In that case it would be easier to remove the video track, leaving only the audio. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese copyright and bystanders

Rather specific question regarding bystanders and Chinese copyright. There is an OTRS ticket that involves a photo taken by a bystander in China decades ago. The holder of the photo, obviously, doesn't know who the bystander is so it would be impossible to get their permission. Normally, we wouldn't accept this since there isn't any real case law in the US regarding bystanders and copyright. Note: Yes I have read through the talk page of Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie but the WMF's legal opinion is more of a "cover all bases" type response instead of an actual concrete answer.

Now, after reading through COM:CRT#People's Republic of China, it is my interpretation that there might be an avenue after all within Chinese copyright law. Specially, Article 13. In the case of a work of an unknown author, the copyright, except the right of authorship, shall be exercised by the lawful holder of the original copy of the work. So would this mean that in China the copyright would belong to the person in the photo and therefore be fine for upload here? If so, how do we deal with the conflict between Chinese and US law caused by the US's ambiguity?

This ticket has been open for almost an entire year now so I would really hope for some more opinions on this. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that in bystander photos, the subject is at least a co-author, enough to give us a valid license. I think it's taking literal copyright too far to require someone to name an anonymous bystander. If not, copyright law basically makes it an unusable work, protecting nobody's rights, which really is not the intent of such laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
When you ask a bystander to take a picture, you are effectively using them as a tripod made of flesh. Or bipod if you wish. In general there is very little if any creative input from the bystander. Also, in such cases the author isn't just unknown, it's impossible to identify the author. If somebody would say "I pressed the button", the only way to prove that would be if there is some CCTV footage available or something. The work in question contains nothing that helps to identify the author. Chinese law seems to cover this, but it's more general than that. If somebody would spray some graffiti without signature on a wall in the middle of the night, in China, the copyright will belong to whoever owns that wall.
I don't think it changes US copyright though. As far as the US is concerned, the copyright will still be with the graffiti artist. The Chinese wall-owner would not be allowed to print copies of the graffiti and sell those in the US. But correct me if I'm wrong. W3ird N3rd (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Per en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., foreign law regarding copyright ownership can indeed have an effect in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I just want to make sure I'm reading everything correct. So if the person in this photo is releasing it, say, under CC-BY-SA 4.0 then that would apply for both the Chinese and the US copyright correct? Since the US defaults to foreign law. I'm going off of [International] law was to be used to determine who was the copyright holder of a work and that U.S. law was to be applied to figure out whether a copyright violation had occurred and to judge it. in that article. So since Chinese law has a specific bystander statute then I'm ok to accept this image? Right? --Majora (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: When you say "the person in this photo", do you mean "the person who owns the phone/memory card/photographic film"? W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: "the person in the photo" is the person who owns the camera/film. --Majora (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: in your specific case that may be the same person, but for a moment there I was confused if this was being confused with w:de:Recht am eigenen Bild. Roughly "right to your own image", not sure what this is called in English. It gives some rights to anyone who is in a photo. This is a right different from copyright and varies between countries. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
You are thinking of {{Personality rights}}. That is completely separate from copyright and is immaterial to Commons. --Majora (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if a court follows the Itar-TASS ruling, that Chinese law would also have an affect in the U.S., meaning that person should have the right to validly license it. Other countries may or may not follow that, but that should at least cover the country of origin and the U.S. part of policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The 'bystander selfie' proposal failed when it was taken to the community, due to being blatantly incompatible with copyright regulations. A bystander taking a picture is an 'author', not a 'bipod'. Jcb (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Co-author, in my mind. But in this case, there is specific Chinese law which would help as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, Jcb. Chinese copyright law seems to actually cover this instance pretty explicitly. And per the Itar-TASS ruling, international law is taken into account when determining US copyright as well. So that would mean that they can release it under a free license that would be Commons compatible since it would be valid in both China and in the US. Unless I am missing something? I just don't want to tell this person, "yes", just to find out that I was wrong. --Majora (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest accepting bystander selfies or not accepting that the bystander has the copyright. Just pointing out why the Chinese law is sensible in this case. If the bystander in question does not provide any creative input (angle, subject, timing, frame, camera settings, etc) it would be odd to grant that person copyright as they really are nothing more than a tripod. But to my knowledge that's indeed the interpretation of the law today, so we have to follow that. If anyone was confused I apologize. It does raise the question of what an "unknown author" is. Just because you don't know their name may not mean they are unknown. The graffiti artist in the middle of the night is an unknown author, on purpose. Somebody sending anonymous letters to a newspaper is an unknown author. The bystander may not be. Just because you forgot to ask their name (or you did but you can't remember) possibly doesn't mean they are unknown. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mountain dew bottles

Can Commons accept File:DEW SuperNova.JPG and File:Mountain Dew Holiday Brew.jpg per COM:PACKAGING? This does not seem to be a case of de minimis and the focus of the each photo is the bottle's labeling. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The first photo is of the entire bottle. That is not focusing on the label. Second one... could be. Although most of that logo is PD-teztlogo; the question is if the rest is de minimis. But that one is borderline at best, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In the case of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ToiletDuck200706251755.jpg which seems similar, the copyrighted label was cropped from the picture. In that case the picture was still useful without the label, in this case not so much. Which makes a case for de minimis only weaker. W3ird N3rd (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not a similar case as there is no copyrightable elements in that photo. Wikicology (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology: The Mountain Dew photos themselves are copyrighted. (by whoever made them, but they shared them with CC-BY-SA) The bottle/label is possibly {{PD-textlogo}}. I'm not so sure it is, but it could be. It should be tagged as such in that case, but I won't do it because I'm not sure. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about the toilet duck in the DR you linked above. Wikicology (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Second image seems to be focusing on the label and the label is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology: "This is not a similar case as there is no copyrightable elements in that photo." not anymore there are! The label was cropped because of that, that was the point. Check the file history. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated the holiday brew for deletion and added de minimis to the supernova bottle image. The latter may be replaced with PD-textlogo if that covers it, but I'll leave that to others more experienced in judging that. W3ird N3rd (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Art Clokey - Gumby on Archive.org

Category:Art Clokey - Gumby is full of film clips of the classic claymation character Gumby. They source from https://archive.org/details/GumbyAdventuresPigeonInAPlumTree1, but in my experience Internet Archive doesn't have the best record of monitoring copyright issues, user-submissions, or responding to queries. List of Gumby episodes#Public domain makes a poorly supported claim that some episodes are in the public domain (merely linking to a video posted to Internet Archive as "evidence"), and it's possible some of the videos fail copyright registration (i.e. no notice or incorrect notice), but I think some more scrutiny is needed. -Animalparty (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if some of the episodes were not renewed, they would still be derivative of the Gumby character. The character was established by the first published episode (and with subsequent expression added by later episodes), so it would only help if that first episode was never renewed (in which case that would be OK), but I have not seen any indication of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks for that insight, I've never looked at it from that angle. If I may ask: let's assume for the sake of argument the first episode didn't have it's copyright renewed and is in the public domain. And the same is true for the third episode, but the second episode was renewed and is still copyrighted. If a new character, catchphrase/gesture/dance or background was introduced in that second episode and also used in the third episode it would mean the third episode is also partially copyrighted. (and thus can't be made available on Commons) Would that be correct? (I'm aware you can't copyright a dance, but assume the exact same dance motion from the second episode was re-used in the third episode) W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, aspects of characters added in later episodes could still be considered copyrightable aspects of the character, and would only expire when that episode expires. See Warner Bros. vs AVELA for some excruciating detail on such matters, which involved material from Tom & Jerry, Gone With the Wind, and The Wizard of Oz. In that case, some publicity materials which predated the movie was ruled public domain, but they were not enough to establish the character. A company, which combined some of the PD material with a quote from the movie, was ruled to have (by including the quote) evoked the character, and was guilty of violating the character copyright, which still existed. I believe there have been other cases where individual episodes not being renewed were still subject to the character copyright. I know there was another case where a movie was not renewed, but since it was a derivative work of a book which was still under copyright, copying of the movie was still controlled by the book author's copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Unclear license on file:Bratislava Venturska ulica1.jpg

Could someone please fix the Bratislava Venturska ulica1.jpg so that the license becomes clear? An anon ip has added PD-template. When going through history of the file, I see that the uploader first marked it pd in the desc:permission. Is it possible to license a file both CC, PD, and GPL? DavidIvar (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You can not license anything as public domain. You can only release something into public domain. After that you can not license this work to anybody anymore. Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In general, you could. You would have to consult a lawyer to be sure, but releasing something into the public domain is often not possible. That's why we have CC0 and similar licenses. The author usually still has the copyright, but allows anyone to use the work for any purpose. That means the author can also offer the same work with a GPL-license and CC-BY license. There would be no reason for anyone to use those if it's already available with CC0, but multiple licenses can be offered anyway. Also think of the case where somebody releases a work with CC-BY-SA license and later adds CC0. That does not void the CC-BY-SA license, there's just no reason for anyone to pick that over CC0 when using the work.
A more interesting question is probably if I could license the entire works of Beethoven (for which copyright expired, different from CC0) to you with a CC-BY-SA license. I suspect I can. It could be considered plagiarism (but that's legal) and you would have to be sucker to pay for it though. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Offtopic, but that would be illegal under the US Copyright Act Section 506(c). —LX (talk, contribs) 00:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, at least it won't cost me more than $2500. So plagiarism is legal, as long as you don't put any notice of copyright on it. It does say "fraudulent intent" though, so as long as I'm fully transparent about what I'm doing I could probably get away with it. If I upload Beethoven to a Wikimedia site, put a CC-BY-SA license on it while still entering "Beethoven" as the author, I'm maybe not breaking copyright law. It may conflict with Creative Commons though, so the license could be invalid in that case. I'm not sure. Anyway, the point was that CC0/CC/GPL don't have to conflict with each other. Real PD might. If it does, that would mean that when a work enters the public domain by expiration of the copyright any CC-license would become invalid. At least in theory this could happen if somebody made a work, died in 1950 and the children would release the work with a CC-BY-license today. I honestly don't know what would happen in 2020 when that work enters the public domain. I'm curious, will the CC-BY license be invalidated? W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Nothing would happen. You still have an offer to use the work under the CC-BY, that could be relevant in nations that are longer than life+70 or in nations with a publication copyright. Even if all the copyrights (and copyright-like things) ended, all you have is an offer to license that's no longer relevant. Given the lackadaisical attitude shown to actual attempts to extract money by licensing PD works, nobody is going to look twice at a CC license offered while a work was still under copyright.
Note that the new editions of older works can have new copyright, and frequently will have copyright notices even on questionably copyrightable changes. Uploading Beethoven and putting a CC-BY-SA license on it could be seen as a claim to copyright to the edition you uploaded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You lack the understanding of what plagiarism is. None of your examples is a plagiarism. It is just a fraud. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right. I know what plagiarism is but I mixed up some things here. I could put Beethoven on my blog and legally say it's my own work, but I can't put a copyright notice on it. (at least not in the US) Doesn't change my point though: a file can have more than one license, including PD, as Prosfilaes further made clear. As for this file in particular: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bratislava_Venturska_ulica1.jpg&oldid=26043483 says "Own work, all rights released (Public domain)". (it says released, not reserved) In some countries (and maybe Commons) this line may not be enough to actually release something into the public domain so also having the CC/GFDL makes perfect sense. I think back in 2009 there maybe was no easy way to select PD. (CC0 launched the same year, don't know when it became available here) W3ird N3rd (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: {{Cc-zero}} has been available here since this edit 16:55, 12 May 2008‎ (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: This is odd, because w:Creative_Commons_license#Zero_/_public_domain says "Development of CC0 began in 2007 and the tool was released in 2009.". It seems to have been formally introduced in march 2009. The old template also links to staging.creativecommons.org. It may have existed, but I suspect there was no easy way (like a dropdown menu) to select it at the time. W3ird N3rd (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
What you said is still confusing. CC0 is not exactly the public domain. It is just a license (in the family of CC licenses) under which the copyright holder releases their work. So, my point still stands. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I do not believe I have said it is. I think it's your comment that's confusing. You said "You can only release something into public domain. After that you can not license this work to anybody anymore.". CC0 has a waiver to release the work into the public domain and a fall-back all-permissive license, in case the waiver is not possible. So CC0 alone already releases something into the public domain and provides an all-permissive license to anyone in case the waiver is not legally valid. While there would be no need and it would likely just confuse people, I see no reason you couldn't add a CC-BY license afterwards. (this CC-BY might be invalid in countries where the CC0 successfully released the work into the PD) In this particular case, the user is from Slovenia. Continental Europe has afaik no reliable way of releasing a work into the public domain, so the PD notices and templates from the user may not be legally valid at all. So luckily he also included a BY-SA and GFDL license. W3ird N3rd (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all, for response, and an interesting discussion. I still do not feel confident enough to make appropriate changes to the file. But it is not urgent. DavidIvar (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Files sent by people to VOA

The 'Copyright notice' on VOA website clearly says that "All text, audio and video material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is in the public domain." However, recently many VOA files were uploaded which were sent by people and the source links say that clearly. See this for example. Are they still under PD? --Mhhossein talk 17:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No.
This might actually be the reason the word "images" is omitted in their terms, see Copyright#VOA_and_static_images. Just an attempt to reduce accidental copyright infringement. W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe you meant to link to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#VOA_and_static_images. Best, -Animalparty (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indication of source in {{copyvio}} speedy

Recently, a sysop placed the tag {{copyvio|1=https://en.ppt-online.org/129503 }} on a file. On that URL I see a DHTML slideshow with many images and the one referred is not immediately visible. When I spent a minute of my time to reach the presumed source image, I found, contrary, a degraded derivative of the image uploaded to Commons.

I don’t blame the sysop for excessive suspicion towards a guy who uploaded a copyrighted book as Own work and then rapidly overwrote the PDF to get rid of copyright notice, but shouldn’t all users be instructed to provide presumed source URLs specific enough? Of course, wherever is it technically feasible. Obscure or cluttered Web pages hinder review of {{Copyvio}} requests. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And a related question in light of this Ankry’s comment. For cases when the media found in Internet arguably cannot be considered a plausible source, but obliquely indicates a dubious status – perhaps another, distinct {{Significant doubt}} template? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a {{Disputed}} template. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed used so prolific that Items with disputed copyright information constitutes a heavy backlog. Perhaps users should be discouraged from requesting speedy deletion for such cases as File:Качканар_-_улица_Свердлова.jpg and instructed to submit a regular deletion request. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Nagualdesign

Could I please get some extra pairs of eyes at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nagualdesign. The user there, who I assume is an administrator, does not seem to be following the guidelines. I cannot appeal a decision or request an undeletion unless I understand why an image was deleted, which I don't. I've since uploaded an original work as a non-copyright-infringing replacement, which is now also threatened with deletion. The guidelines say; If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator. (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation. I've tried the former and no explanation was forthcoming, so here I am attempting the latter. (My native language is English.) nagualdesign 01:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: It seems to me that the deletion is based on COM:DW and a related doubt concerning your copyright to the images (if you do not owm copyright you cannot license the images). In case of DW, to license an image you have to prove that the underlying image is also your own or published under a compatible license or that the underlying image is below COM:TOO (and then it is not a DW, actually).
Personally I doubt the loge is below COM:TOO (otherwise it would not be used in enwiki as Fair Use) as well as I doubt that you made your imageg from scratch, eg. pixel-by-pixel without even looking at the logo. IMO, Christian Ferrer is right in this DR. But, maybe, you can point out another freely-licensed image that your images as well as the logo are all based on... Ankry (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
One may as well argue that it's obvious the logo is below COM:TOO and wrongfully tagged on enwiki because it's here under a free license. A circle with a map of the world in it is not copyrightable, except for the map, which is not based on the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I cannot judge here as I know almost nothing about German TOO. I rely on enwiki copyright info. Ecosia seems to be a German company. Maybe, the logo is below TOO in US, but copyrightable in Germany, so PD in US, but incompatible with Commons requirements (Germany should be considered the country of origin, IMO, as this seems to be DW of German work). Ankry (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Just to clarify, since there are two pairs of images we're discussing here; The ones already deleted were cropped from the old version of the Ecosia logo. That logo may not be below COM:TOO, and I understand that it's currently under Fair Use. However, the centre portion alone, which I had cropped to make the (now deleted) images, I would have thought was almost certainly below COM:TOO. And since I believed them to be such any license would be pretty meaningless. I'm guessing (though can't honestly remember) that I chose a PD license, as that's not the sort of image that I would claim as my own.
As for the two images currently facing deletion, I did indeed make them from scratch. Not pixel by pixel though, and of course I looked at the official logo! (Is there a law against looking that I'm not aware of?!) I opened a copy of File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png in Photoshop, adjusted the edge (using Smooth + Shift Edge), coloured it by eye, cropped out a circular portion and placed a coloured circle around it. If you directly compare it to the real Ecosia logo you can see that the colours aren't perfect, and the map doesn't really match at all. It's just broadly similar, and that was the whole idea. Since you doubt that I made them from scratch I've uploaded an animation to demonstrate.
Re. "But, maybe, you can point out another freely-licensed image that your images as well as the logo are all based on..." I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. What I've tried to do here is make a generic version of the Ecosia logo, and I did so using a Public Domain map. nagualdesign 08:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The animation is well done.. I commented in the DR. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: It's like I've already read this discussion. Wait, I have. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

These 4 images

Dear Admins or trusted users,

Are these 4 images secure enough to mark? The uploader asks whether the images can be licensed as CC BY SA 4.0 (his question links to this license version) and kinyeti--whom I assume is the copyright owner says I license them as CC BY SA--with no version number.

Or can I retag them as {{Cc-by-sa-all}} and pass the images? I will be signing off for tonight. But hopefully someone can give a reply. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The original request was for a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license and the next day the reddit user confirmed that but without adding the number. In good faith, I would assume they never linked to the actual license but just added the request text as seen on their page, so personally I would review these as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Ww2censor (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo of a journal cover

Being a new contributor here, I recently uploaded an older version of a scanned file of a Swedish journal cover. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Moskawi&ilshowall=1). The upload was done in "good faith" and I should perhaps have informed myself better in advance. The file was almost immediately tagged by Yger as "Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: nonfree first page, not from today and not created by uploader. Should be compared with threshold of originality." It was suggested in the discussion that "Maybe the cover is considered simple".

The journal in question is put down and for various reasons I happen to know that there are no copyright problems considering the cover. But I accept the principles of Commons, of course. I accept the deletion of the file and I deleted it myself from the page about the journal on Wikipedia. See https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_(svensk_tidskrift) However, the picture is still available here on Commons – I don't know why.

My question now: I have (today) taken brand new photos of the cover in four versions: 1) showing only the logo of the journal 2) showing the cover as it appears on an ipad screen (the frame of the ipad is clearly shown) 3) Showing the cover as such 4) showing the journal cover including part of a hand holding the journal.

The objective is to show the cover, of course, but this is without doubt my original work through the act of photography.

Would (in principle and from a legal perspective) any of these versions be accepted on commons? Moskawi (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, taking a photo of someone else's copyrighted work does not make it your own work, and you cannot license the resulting derivative work without the consent of the copyright holder of the original work. But the deletion discussion for File:Locus4-10.jpegM.jpg is still ongoing, and it may well be that the original cover does not qualify for copyright protection, in which case all that's needed is a cleanup of the file description. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Well I'll wait and see then. Moskawi

Scan of document in PD from someone else

Hey all, I would like to upload the following scan/image that I found on the internet. It's a government document from 1934 (so it should be PD). Is it possible to upload a scan of a government document in PD that I have found on the internet and therefore scanned by someone else? I would blur the name, date of birth and photo in this case. --Timk70 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice ID. {{PD-scan}}. I don't know however if a passport issued by the Dutch government in 1934 is PD. I suspect it is, but I don't have the links to back that up. As for blurring names, I would actually find that a shame. The man was born in 1910 so probably no longer alive. I see little if any privacy-related reasons to blur names here. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I now see that it doesn't meet the requirements of {{PD-1996}} though, so I probably have to upload it on a local Wikipedia version anyway, I think. --Timk70 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Timk70: I don't think PD-1996 is the right template to be looking at. But I think it actually does meet the requirements of PD-1996, at least the document, the photo might be a different story. Exactly what is publication is tricky, one might argue this particular document was not published in 1934 but when it was scanned and put on the internet. However, this design was used for many passports so you can probably consider that published in or before 1934. (but IANAL) I don't see any copyright notice. The big question is: is it in the public domain in the Netherlands? I just don't know. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it is public domain in the Netherlands. Isn't it an anonymous work (corporate works with no listed natural author) published more than 70 years ago within the meaning of the this page? --Timk70 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
If the photo is the only copyrightable element, and since the photographer is anonymous, I think it would have expired in 1985, 50 years after publication, assuming that printing a single copy of such a document would count as "publication" in Dutch law. It doesn't seem to be a full passport, but a proof of Dutch citizenship that can be used at the German border. Letters of proof of citizenship are still issued. --ghouston (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It may have expired in 1985, and then come into copyright again in the mid 1990s, when the term was extended to 70 years, then expired again in 2005. I'm not sure what that means for the US 1996 rule. --ghouston (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The question is, was it in copyright on 1996-01-01? Anything that happened later is irrelevant. Reading through the English and Dutch Wikipedia articles about copyright in the Netherlands, they don't say specifically when it went from life+50 to life+70--if it was the 1994 copyright act, and that act went into effect before 1996, then it's copyright for 95 years from publication in the US. (If it was 1996-01-01 like it was in the UK, I understand the intent of the UK law was to restore those works before the URAA, and 1996-01-01 in Greenwich came earlier than 1996-01-01 in Washington.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it was 1995. This document seems to be a "law of 21 December 1995" which increased the term to 70 years, and near the end says it takes effect from 1 July 1995. I'm not entirely sure how that works. --ghouston (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought about it some more and it's even more complex than I thought. We have many things here: the document, the photo, the scan, publication and COA.

  • The document may or may not be PD-ineligible. (I suppose it could be)
  • The act of scanning is not creative, but might affect the publication date.
  • The COA stamp is {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}}. The stamp duty has the same COA.
  • The Dutch copyright for the document (if there was any to begin with) almost certainly expired. The US copyright may be 95 years from publication, but that may not be a problem: if this document design was already in use in 1923 we would be there. If it was introduced in, say, 1930 it would enter the public domain in 2025. The design of the document has been given to hundreds or thousands of people, which most probably would be considered publication. (if I sell one hundred DVDs to members of the public and that's not considered publication I don't know what is)
  • Moving on to the photo. Ghouston said "the photographer is anonymous". Sorry, not true. Just because we don't know who did it doesn't make them anonymous. Nowadays, such a photo would be taken by a commercial photographer (you can pick any you like, or even have a friend take the photo) or by a photo booth. (selfie, really) Back in 1934, it could have been the same. (replace the booth with some string tied to the shutter release of a camera) If that's the case, the photograph is copyrighted for the life of the photographer+70 years. Since we don't know who did it, it will take more than a century for it to enter the public domain.
  • You might say "the copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall" means anonymous right? For all we know the photographer put his/her signature on the back of the photo or used photo paper with his logo on the back. (if that was possible at the time) This being a scan, we can't tell. There could also be a receipt for the photo.
  • However, back in 1934 it's possible the photo was made by a photographer working for the government. In that case it probably expired in the Netherlands but will expire in the US in 1934+95=2029.
  • Unless the photo hasn't been used for anything else and being on a travel document is not considered publication in which case it will expire in the US in 2017+95=2112. (assuming the scan went online in 2017)
  • For the photo to be in the public domain now, the photographer must not have been employed by the government and the life of the photographer+70 years needs to have passed.

Long story short: the photo was stapled to the document and could have existed before the document as an independent work. If the document is {{PD-ineligible}} we can blur the photo. (or if somebody has way too much time, replace it with a photo in the public domain) The document can go on Commons in that case. W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:MTV Classic 2013.png

This is certainly not the uploader's own work, but it might be simple enough for {{PD-logo}} based upon other files found in Category:MTV logos and per c:COM:TOO#United States. Any reasons why this cannot be converted to "PD-logo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Mainly because that template is called {{PD-textlogo}}. File:MTV_Classic_2011.png is nearly the same image. If you need more logos, try https://www.lyngsat-logo.com/. They also have hires, although for this one I had to look up the hires image from Lyngsat on archive.org. W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I've nominated the file for deletion just now. Not for the reason you might think. W3ird N3rd (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this W3ird N3rd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

user:Lagun D L

Hello.Does the license fits the pictures?Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: At least File:Газета_города_Лейпциг_(Германия).jpg is wrong, need to check the others as well. W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I think I've had them all, but we need someone who can read Russian. The user also created w:ru:Лагун,_Леонид_Демидович and I suspect he is creating a Wiki page about himself or a family member. I can't read the warnings on the Russian wiki. We also need someone to explain what File_talk:Карьера_1.jpg, File_talk:Карьера_2.jpg and File_talk:Присвоение_звания.jpg are about so we can verify who is the author and if copyright applies or not. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Bandera del Partido Conservador Colombiano.png

This file was uploaded to Commons as {{Self}}. The same file, however, is was also uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Conservative party logo.svg as non-free content. If the Commons file can be kept as licensed or converted to another appropriate license, then there's really no need for a non-free local version on English Wikipedia per en:WP:NFCC#1. I've asked about this at en:WP:MCQ#File:Conservative party logo.svg, but the replies so far seem to feel the "C" logo might be creative enough to make the image eligible for copyright protection. Anyone have any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It really is a C, right? Text, regardless of font, gets no copyright under US law. Even the Subway logo doesn't have copyright protection. Colombia however I don't know and for Commons it needs to be free in both the US and the country or origin. Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons may help. I've just marked a bunch of MTV logos on English wikipedia with {{subst:ncd}} because I've uploaded them here. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
i would not read anything into a "fair use" image at English, other than there is no trust it will not get deleted on commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

File:The Great Gatsby cover 1925 (2).jpg

the Great Gatsby was published in 1925, so I'm not sure that the book's cover should be being licensed as {{PD-US}}. It may be PD for some other reason, but it certainly is not {{Self}} and the "own work" of the uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Discovery channel logos

File:Discovery Channel International logo.svg was updated to a new version in December 2017. Thee previous version shown here does seem to be {{PD-text logo}}; however, the updated version does not since it contains globe imagery which might be considered to push the logo above the TOO even for the US. Is this latest version also "PD-text logo" and how does it need to be fixed if it's not? Do you simply delete the recently updated versions or does the entire file now need to be deleted?

The copyright licenses of File:Discovery Channel logo.svg and File:Discovery Channel 1995 - 2000 logo.svg probably also need review. No new version was added in this case, but these also do not seem to be "PD-text logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No mention to derivative works. Is it a valid license (according to commons)?

I've found the following licensing conditions in a Spanish site. It reads as follows: Se prohíbe la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos del Portal sin citar su origen o solicitar autorización. More or less: "The total or partial reproduction of the portal contents is not allowed unless attributed or asking for permission". Traditionally, we at Commons have requested an explicit mention on the possibility of creating derivative works, but according [3] to Ruthven, the abovementioned licensing condition is fully valid. It would be nice to know that we no longer ask for explicit permission on derivative works and than a generic permission on reproduction is enough. Best regards --Discasto talk 10:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC) PS: the following section describes a pretty similar case to this one.

You should take into account that in European countries there is no concept of derivative work generally. There are only adaptations, transformations and such. So, I think that "partial reproduction" is sufficient. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Similar to previous one

In a parallel discussion with Elisardojm, we've found this license: Los contenidos de esta página web podrán ser utilizados por los interesados en ellos, siempre que hagan constar su procedencia (that is, "The contents of this webpage can be used by any [individual, entity] interested in them, provided that they're attributed"). IMHO opinion is a very similar case to the previous one, as reproduction is allowed but no explicit mention to derivation is carried out. Is it valid? --Discasto talk 10:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for ask that Discasto. IMHO, that license is like a CC-BY license, the only requirement that the web claims is attribution. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, in fact is one of the cases in which we use {{Attribution}}. Mind that a CC license is a legal aggreement and we can't turn a license in natural language to a legal license. IMHO it would be simpler (for us) if sites used regular CC licenses. Otherwise, we can't do the analogy work. --Discasto talk 10:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that template, it's perfect for this case! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And now I have found Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Odarslövs kyrka från Lunds stift.jpg, a similar case to this. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Keysight

The intellectual property director of Keysight has started a delreq for File:Keysight logo.svg, asserting that "the red shape (Keysight’s logo) is protected as a registered copyright." The uploader, X-Fi6, asserts that it is {{PD-simple}}. I have no opinion. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the red shape is a little creative (it's not just a sine wave, but a window of two sine waves). I wouldn't mind moving to Wikipedia under a fair use disclaimer. X-Fi6 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos of actors performing as cartoon characters

Should the image in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kikattava_Kakkiainen.jpg be deleted? If a character itself is copyrighted, is there a copyright problem also in pictures of an actor performing cartoon character? In Commons is a huge amount of pics of cartoon character performers, for example Category:Elsa (Disney). --Kulmalukko (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As I posted on the deletion discussion, the current status is Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay, which ... is a prime piece of legalese, that if anyone thinks they can be completely sure of how to interpret, I will buy them a drink or possibly spill one on them. I'm going to read it as "does the picture focus on the inanimate character, as opposed to focusing on a human person wearing the costume?" and in this particular case it seems that the photograph is on the performance of the person in the costume on the opening of a shopping center, rather than just on the inanimate character that happens to be portrayed in cloth rather than on celluloid. But ... lordy! --GRuban (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Stock Photo Image Use

I have an image that is available for purchase on two stock photo websites but appears to be of an eighteenth century portrait/engraving. The subject is Bernard-René Jourdan de Launay, Governor of the Bastille. My intent was to upload the image to Commons for use across Wikipedia.

Source: http://www.datuopinion.com/bernard-rene-de-launay

Stock Photo 1: Alamy.com

Stock Photo 2: SuperStock.com

Both websites identify their copy as originating from a "contemporary print", but this fails to address whether the original portrait/engraving is exempt from copyright protection due to age. Uploading this image would obviously undermine the commercial practices of these websites. How shall I proceed?
- Conservatrix (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Conservatrix,
You can upload this with a {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} license. Please provide as much information as possible (date, source, author, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The original is doubtless PD, and any reproduction uploaded with appropriate {{PD-Art}} tags would be fine here. But the watermarks are a problem.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ping Yann, Odysseus1479: The metadata bears SuperStock copyright.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bernard-René_Jourdan_de_Launay.jpg
- Conservatrix (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This mention should be removed. It is just copyfraud. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: I am not familiar with the process. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Conservatrix: You could overwrite it with File:Bernard-René_Jourdan_de_Launay_2.jpg, but since that file includes a few more changes I will leave that decision to you. W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: You overestimate my abilities. Proceed with the overwrite if it pleases you. - Conservatrix (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Conservatrix: There's a link "Upload a new version of this file" on the image page. Since you're OK with it, I've just uploaded the new version. W3ird N3rd (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Dw no source since}} pettifogging

 

Look at this diff on a multilingual SVG image. Statistical data from international agencies? They are likely in public domain. The old PNG image — it is based on aforementioned data, whereas design (although cool) doesn’t seem to be original enough for a significant copyright claim on grounds of the design only. Also, vectorization doesn’t reuse raster images directly. Vectorized images are, in fact, created anew using raster images for reference. Is existence of this PNG a thing significant enough to template the SVG image? Moreover, shouldn’t just {{retouched picture|vectorization|orig=Nuclear Power History.png}} be placed in source=, indeed? It would fix the perceived problem without creating much distraction.

Perhaps, texts used for translation? There are experts here; say me please, are texts that short eligible for copyright? And how should Commons credit authors of translations on a dozen languages?

By the way, {{Dw image source}} warning template now accepts «orig=» argument that can specify the presumed original file on Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page: ianal. But the graphical design appears utilitarian to me, not creative. No copyright. (and it's not exactly the same as the .png anyway) Literal translations: no copyright. (unlike descriptive translations) Data: sometimes covered by database rights or something, but that's not what we are discussing here. The .png has not been updated since it was uploaded and the site it originates from is not loading here. (dead?) So this .svg isn't even a plain vectorization of the .png, copyright likely does not apply to the .png, the design has been altered anyway. @Jeff G.: can't we just remove this template? You could put "one day, this was inspired by File:Nuclear_Power_History.png but it has been altered and updated since" in the description, but what exactly are we trying to accomplish here? W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I cannot understand how such images could be a copyright problem. The I agree with Incnis Mrsi. Borvan53 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi, W3ird N3rd, and Borvan53: The tag and templates I left were designed to get the uploaders to fix their own mess. Yann removed the tag, but fixed nothing. @Dragons flight: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: to get the uploaders to fix their mess deploying your glowing-red mess on a user_talk, you mean? Including user_talk of a person who only edited the German translation once. First of all, if you don’t see a plausible source, then you shouldn’t assert that an illustration designer left any mess at all. It implies that you should have a conjecture where the source lies before acting. When I encountered an unlawful disrespect to original authors by the uploader of File:Hydrogen Density Plots BN.png and File:Ionic Bonds বাংলা.png, I first applied necessary changes to source= and then went on to project warning boxes. The “nuclear” case, instead, could be solved by placing a link to File:Nuclear Power History.png (e.g. in other_versions=) without cluttering anybody’s user_talk because, again, it isn’t that important legally. Or don’t you see the difference in magnitude between missing attribution to an already vectorized image and missing attribution to an obsolete PNG? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
So now you are happy? Whatever floats your boat, if a simple copypaste from this discussion is all it takes.. W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I raised this issue originally and I am also the author of the original graph that was copied. I provided the original under a copyleft license because I care about both attribution and copyleft protections. I don't want to see the new image deleted. I do however care about seeing original authorship acknowledged and the copyleft honored, which could be fixed by a clear reference to the original and a change of license (to GFDL and/or CC-BY-SA as per the original). For what it is worth I will strenuously disagree that images like this are ineligible for copyright protection. The threshold for copyright protection in creative works is low. If it were true that all similar graphs were ineligible for copyright, we could basically take almost any chart in the known universe and put it on Wikimedia claiming PD-ineligible. However, we clearly don't do that. Consider, if someone had been presented with the same data but had never seen the original chart, would they be likely to have chosen a similar layout, set of labels, choice of colors, and selection of features to highlight, etc.? To my mind there are more than enough elements being duplicated to identify this as a derivative work. But anyway, my preference has never been for deletion. I would just like to see the original license and authorship honored. Dragons flight 11:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 
It is reasonable to protect such works as this PNG with copyright, but this may not extend very far. Was the image reused directly? No. Was design bluntly reproduced without any noticeable rework? No again. Then no legal copyright protection for the case, although on moral grounds the link should be present. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
As before, I will bluntly disagree. The new image is a derivative work of the PNG, and as such the original authorship and license should be respected. Dragons flight (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could discuss sticking {{PD-ineligible}} on your png. All kidding aside, if I take one ear from Mickey Mouse, blank the inside (so I am left with just a circle), vectorize it and incorporate this circle into some new completely original image this will not be a derivate work that is © Disney Corporation. The arrows have changed, the font color has changed, the lines on the bars have changed, the shade of blue has changed, the "power" and "number of reactors" have been shifted from the right to the left, lines were added, lines sticking out at the top/right/left were removed and the font weight of the title is no longer bold. How much more needs to change before this stops being a derivative work? W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Simple answer, if the new image is easily recognized as based on the old image (and not just based on the same data), then you probably haven't done enough to remove a derivative use claim. In most contexts, certain kinds of modifications may qualify as fair use, but of course Commons isn't allowed to consider fair use as an argument. Consequently, if you want to claim that A is somehow not derivative of B on Commons then B needs to be that much more thorough in eliminating the design elements of A. Seriously though, all I'm asking is that the original licensing actually be respected? Why does there need to be so much argument about it? Dragons flight (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 
proposed new version
Because you're trying to force a more restrictive license on something that had already derivated quite far from your work and is mostly basic utilitarian shapes. It's bordering on the ridiculous. I'd rather improve it to the point where virtually all of your design elements are gone. So that's what I did. This new file needs to be checked for errors and general usability. Btw, is @Delphi234: aware of the discussion here? W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dragons flight: in Finland, File:Automotive alternator.jpg was found ineligible for copyright protection by a governmental panel. Ineligible at all. Here, several Commons members only try to explain you that this conduct is not a thing helping to uphold some consistent rules for attribution. This case lead to some constructive discussion, but further appeals like one linked should be considered noise. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

HydroSHEDS GIS data

Hi all, I started working on some draingage basin maps (File:Yangtze River basin map.svg, File:Indus River basin map.svg) and most of the data sources I used say that they're totally public domain and I don't even need to worry about attribution (e.g. Natural Earth, SRTM), but I realized that the basin outline itself (which I've edited slightly) is from HydroSHEDS, which has license terms given here: http://hydrosheds.org/page/license My questions are:

  • Can somebody with a more legal bent than me verify that this is compatible with some license used by Wikimedia Commons?
    • If so, is the default one okay or must I use a different one?
  • Is it mandatory to put that attribution text on the page of every map I upload?
"Is it mandatory to put that attribution text on the page of every map I upload?" I think so
"Can somebody with a more legal bent than me verify that this is compatible with some license used by Wikimedia Commons?" The kind of attribution is more than CC, so it's not compatible with that. "Licensee shall not decompile, reverse engineer, or disassemble the Licensed Materials, in whole or in part, except as expressly authorized by this License or by prior written consent of WWF, and shall include such restrictions in its license agreement with End Users." seems to suggest ND, and CC-BY-ND can't be used here either. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Using template Derived from without "by" parameter

All my time at Commons I used to use {{Derived from}} in the source field for derivative works (cropping, turning, translation etc.) created by me from someone else free works. All this time my understanding of "optional" for the "by" field in this template was like "it is OK to indicate the autor right away but it is also OK just to provide a link to the description page". Recently a very experienced editor call the later to be a violation of the project licensing policies. So say for File:Shostak 1945.jpg it is currently one of such violations and the source must be:
{{Derived from|Shostak(left).jpg|by=ArseniyKim}} so to output
This file was derived from: Shostak(left).jpg by ArseniyKim

Was it my misunderstanding all this time, putting me into violations of the project licensing policies? --NeoLexx (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Neolexx: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I knew that statement - this is why I was comfortable with my understanding of "by" as being optional. Yet Commons oftenly make their own subrules of what is right or wrong and such subrules may change. This is why I was surprised and a bit panicking when pointed to Derived from without "by" parameter as "a violation of the project licensing policies". To be more clear: the person who said that is not only an experienced editor but also one of Commons administrators. --NeoLexx (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Neolexx: Previous versions of the license (like 3.0) could be interpreted differently. That (and previous versions) say "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing:" followed by a list of things. You could think this means you have to provide all the things on the list if at all possible. The 4.0 license is a bit more clear about they really meant.
Anyway, I wouldn't call that a licensing policy violation. If I forget to close an italic wikicode or consistently use the wrong template to ping/reply to someone that's just sloppy, not a violation. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I would disagree about what "by" is for. I think it's for indicating which user produced the derived version, so you should use {{Derived from|Shostak(left).jpg|by=NeoLexx}} and credit ArseniyKim in the "author" field of {{Information}}. Also, I'm far from certain that ArseniyKim's claim of copyright is correct anyway. Did they really take this photo in 1945? --bjh21 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bjh21: A copy of the photo is at http://web.archive.org/web/20151128213706/https://iremember.ru/memoirs/krasnoflottsi/shostak-mina-ivanovich/.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • My understanding (while making this derivative for a Russian article, but eventually did not use it) was that ArseniyKim (uploader) is a lawful heir. And in such case as it was explained at this forum back in 2011 by Carl Lindberg and concluded, it is not necessary to specify if it is a streight author or a heir.
    Nevertheless and as Heraclitus said — "everything flows, everything changes". If something became in violation of current consensus then it is in need of to be changed or removed.
    I would just like to keep the question focused on the proper attribution of a derivative work based on someone else's free image at Commons. My understanding always was that I am the author of my derivative, so indicated as the author in the Author field of the {{Information}} template. And the work I based my own work on needs to be indicated in the Source field of the same template. This way the bjh21 reading of "by" meaning in {{Derived from}} is a rather unusual to me.
    Still and keeping the question as narrow as possible:
1) having an own creative derivative work from someone else undoubtedly free CC-BY-licensed Commons-allocated work: who must be indicated as the author?
2) wherever the original work is indicated at the file description page: would it be a CC-BY-violation to provide only a link to the original work? is it necessary to indicate its author right by the link as well? --NeoLexx (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Products for a foreign market

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MTV_Base_2017_logo.svg

I'm quite confused here. Viacom/MTV Networks is an American company. But when they make something for the European market, should we really consider a European country to be the country of origin? If Walt Disney makes a cartoon just for the German market, should we consider Germany to be the country or origin, even though Disney is obviously an American company? We should probably reconsider tons of images here if this is the rule now. We don't even know where these logos appeared first, but my guess is in some American press release. But if the location where something appeared first is going to be what counts, some episodes of Mythbusters are Australian or even Dutch because they aired in those countries before they aired in America. The same is true for for Phineas and Ferb (Walt Disney): some episodes aired in The Netherlands before America. So the country of origin for those is The Netherlands? That makes no sense to me. W3ird N3rd (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

May Commons ignore British regulations or may not in this case, but the images are not {{PD-textlogo}}. BTW @Magog the Ogre: please, indicate a mass request either choosing a name for the delreq or, at very least, on notification of the uploader. For a cursory look your request currently seems to be a problem with a single file. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not PD-textlogo? Subway, Lego and Dell are PD-textlogo but these MTV logos are not? How? W3ird N3rd (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Subway-logo-green 2016.png can be considered a simple text logo because arrowheads are negligible for copyright. MTV contains some hand-drawn custom script letters – it is comparable to Calligraphy which had precedents to be protected. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've posted comments at the deletion request. Ww2censor (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: what changed since what @Leyo: said in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MTV_Logo.svg? W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do you ask me about Leyo’s “below COM:TOO” judgement? My claim is “¬PD-textlogo ∧ ≃calligraphy” and I don’t assert that a calligraphic text is necessarily protected. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Leyo is an administrator and ruled years ago the MTV logo is below TOO. You disagree. Either somebody is wrong or something has changed. The TV in MTV is spray-painted by the way. So yeah, who knows. But these MTV logos have been around here for 7+ years and the result is one failed DR. Now I clean up the category, replace some PNG files with SVG. Update Wikipedias in dozens of languages. Still no problem. But when I'm (almost) done, a DR is opened that makes little sense to me. And this would now somehow lead to Category:MTV logos to be removed entirely after 7 years? Now I understand why they were hosting this local on enwiki.. Even this discussion on this very page just a few days ago didn't wake anyone up. If all MTV logos end up being removed from commons I won't be upset about that, but I am a bit upset if I first spend hours cleaning stuff up and only afterwards people wake up and DR everything. Incnis Mrsi, for the love of God, go and seek out anything else on Commons that may need to be deleted and create a DR for it before more time gets wasted. I've already searched myself a bit: Ford is too old (<1923) and so is Johnson & Johnson. I'm not sure about H&M, that's a custom-made italic typeface. Maybe PD in the US, but I doubt the TOO of Sweden has been considered. @Marchjuly: you are a butterfly. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
First, I expressed an opinion that MTV is not a simple text logo only and didn’t estimate its originality. As for Leyo, it’s a wiki here and sysops do not follow the same standard. Leyo is likely an inclusionist, whereas already-above-mentioned Magog the Ogre recently deleted File:Vlcuc.png (source here), a picture a way simpler than any of MTV logos. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the Vlcuc image is a lot more complicated than the MTV logo. Also, it's the logo for w:es:Universidad_de_la_Costa so Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Colombia must be considered as well. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Calligraphy does not have precedence in the US to be copyrighted. This final ruling from the Copyright Office is a good example of that. I'm sure there's precedent elsewhere, but instead of just saying "there is precedent", it's important to say where and give examples if possible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, I believe the Copyright Compendium explicitly lists calligraphy as not being protectable in the U.S. From Chapter 900, section 906.4, As a general rule, typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are not registrable. [...] The Office typically refuses claims based on individual alphabetic or numbering characters, sets or fonts of related characters, fanciful lettering and calligraphy, or other forms of typeface. This is true regardless of how novel and creative the shape and form of the typeface characters may be. You would need ornamental pictorial elements separable from the letters to be copyrightable in the U.S. Other countries can be different. The hand-drawn "TV" lettering is not protectable in the U.S. (the country of origin for the MTV logo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Calligraphy is certainly protected in mainland China – here or search in the «Commons:» space. I have no idea how high is the threshold; possibly much higher than three Latin letters. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would presume China / Japan / Korea / similar may protect calligraphy (probably some Arabic countries protect their calligraphy as well). The "typeface" restriction is heavier in the U.S. than elsewhere, but since "typeface as typeface" is explicitly named as "Material not subject to copyright" in 37 CFR 202.1, that encompasses calligraphy in the U.S., and basically most any form of lettering. Since the MTV logo originated in the U.S., that would be the law which applies for the logo in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Älvsjömässan 1998.jpg

If someone can tell if this image is free, please feel free to mark it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The source page says it’s CC-BY but doesn’t give a version number (while linking to a CC page that in turn links to vv. 2.5 and 4.0).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

SVG font sample foxes

OK, we know that rasterized fonts are in public domain, at least in the United States.

But look at Typeface pangram samples – there is a lot of SVG files. How may one claim that vector glyphs from a copyrighted font are free? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understand they were vectorized from raster images of fonts. However all derivatives of public domain works are automatically in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: your conjecture admits verification/falsification. Can you tell us how these fox samples are different from a typical {{Path text SVG}} picture? Note that the latter are mostly produced without the vector→raster→vector chain hypothesized. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don’t know how any of them were actually made, but if I were doing it myself I’d use an illustration or layout program’s conversion-to-paths function; tracings of rasters are usually very unsatisfactory. At any rate, I’ve seen it claimed that there‘s a difference between raster and vector type WRT copyright, but AIUI letterforms are not copyrightable (in the US) however they‘re executed. Digital fonts are copyrighted as software, and include much more than the glyph-drawings: things like metrics (spacing information), hinting (instructions to maintain consistency of features when rendering the shapes into rasters, noticeable in small sizes or at low resolutions), and logic for contextual combination or substitution of glyphs (diacritics, ligatures, “optical sizes”, and so on). None of those features are present in a text showing, and even a complete set of character outlines represents only a small portion of what goes into a working font.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Metrics are not copyrightable. Free fonts exist with exact metric compatibility with well-known proprietary ones. But glyphs contain much more information than metrics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why Is My Edit Being Blocked?

I edited this image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/58/20070513150653%21Vasco_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez_de_Balboa_%28E._P%C3%A9rez%29_01.jpg

I have edited MANY images in the past and never run into this. In fact I had just edited and uploaded a similar image a few minutes before this. But, this one gives the error "You are trying to overwrite an image of an artwork. Are you sure this overwrite is in line with Commons:Overwriting existing files" I obviously think it's in line with the referenced page but there are too many undefined or ambiguous terms to be sure. What I am sure of this file looks the same a the many I have done in the past. It had me wondering what Common's definition of an 'ARTWORK' is. Is a photograph a work of art? This image page says "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike"

Anyway, my question is why, for the first time, does it refuse to accept my edited version of the file? No, I didn't change the subject or content of the file merely lightened some areas and darkened others. Wiki name (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki name: Please read COM:OVERWRITE. Convenience link: File:Vasco Núñez de Balboa (E. Pérez) 01.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wiki name: Oh, that. I ran into the same thing when trying to overwrite File:Bernard-René_Jourdan_de_Launay.jpg. It's not that your edit is being blocked, the system is just warning you that you may be trying to do something that should be uploaded as a new file. Both that and File:Vasco_Núñez_de_Balboa_(E._Pérez)_01.jpg are in some category for works of art. If you would, for example, remove scuffs and other damage from the photo of some painting, you should not overwrite the original file. If you are sure you are doing the right thing, scroll to the bottom of the page and hit the upload again. I think I even had to do it two or three times, but eventually it came through. W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@W3ird N3rd: That worked. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Shellback bw 2015.jpg

Dear Sir or Madam,

If you agree that this image is free for wikicommons, please feel free to mark it. The permission says it is free to use but does not say including commercial or derivative use. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I don't think that's free enough for us.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else agree with Jeff G's view? If you do, please feel free to file a DR on it. You don't need my permission at all. The problem with this ambiguous "free to use" statement" is that the copyright owner does Not say if the permission extends to Commercial and Derivative use in my opinion. The bigger problem is this is the uploaders only image here. Perhaps it was a good faith attempt to use a poorly written permission statement by the uploader. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I have decided to file a DR based on partly the uploader's poor record Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png

It's possible that this might be {{PD-Canada}} or PD for some other reason, but it's certainly not "own work". Are road signs such as automatically considered as PD=Canada regardless of their design or imagery? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The uploader has clarified here that they created the file using some template and simply added the number "16". I'm not sure if that would make this file a simple reproduction or a derivative with it's own copyright. In either case, however, it seems that the copyright status of the underlying image used by the template would also need to be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that either en:File:Yellowhead.png or en:File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png might be the "template" the uploader used to create their version. "File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png" is sourced to this webpage, which redirects to here. It looks like the Yellowshead shield can be found here. Copyright for the all the content on that website is being claimed by the BC government here, so I don't think (but not 100% sure) that the original imagery is free from copyright protection. Can Commons keep this file as licensed if the original imagery is not PD or otherwise released under a free license? At the same time, there is also Commons:Deletion requests/File:YellowheadShield.jpg where File:YellowheadShield.jpg was kept by consensus. The base imagery seems to be the same to me, but the files are for signs used by two different provinces and the OTRS permission received for the photo might only apply to that particular photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I've decided to take this to DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png. Any further clarifiction of this file's licensing should be added there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Logo Copyright

Hi. Do we need to take permission from the graphic designer who created the logo or the foundation/ celebration which ordered that logo? I mean do you consider it as a WFH? MasoodHA (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@MasoodHA: It depends on who owns the copyright. The designer owns it initially. Do you have a particular logo in mind? What is a WFH?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I'm asking about this logo. The uploader wants to take permission. This logo was designed for an annual Persian music celebration and I think it is a work for hire. MasoodHA (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@MasoodHA: What is this work derivative of? @Gm110m: Who is the real author (you have presented two different names)? How did you acquire the right to issue a CC license? This is very suspicious.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: ِDerivative Work tag was a mistake. The uploader claims to have a permission from the person who ordered the logo and wants to send it from OTRS. MasoodHA (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright of historical documents

Can you freely use the images of historical documents scanned in http://pares.mcu.es/? The page says that your files are free access and there is also a photo from that same portal in Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PARES_poblar_PISCO_1575_bno2.pdf. So, I think yes, that images can be used. But I'm not sure and that's why I ask. Thank you.--Marcos Okseniuk (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If they are older than 1923, try {{PD-scan}}. (like {{PD-scan|PD-US}}, see documentation) W3ird N3rd (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I found out the document was created in 1575, which would be nearly 443 years ago. Images of the document are shown there. Oh... I made adjustments to the file page as the other link is no longer found. George Ho (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Saigon-get-busy-single-art.jpg

This album cover art seems unlikely to be "own work" since it can be found used on various websites well before being uploaded to Commons. I am wondering though whether it can be converted to {{PD-textlogo}} since there only appears to be text on the cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine to me to do that. I went ahead and altered the source/license and uploaded a better version of the image. -- Begoon 08:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and doing that Begoon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Light displays under UK FoP

After releasing some of my London Lumiere photos on Flickr here, I wonder if some can be uploaded to Commons. My thinking is that the fixed neon lighting displays, like the pink ladder on St Martins in the Fields, which was a fixture for four days, might be sufficiently fixed and simple to uploaded. Similarly the neon displayed motto at St James's has too low a copyright to worry about, being simple text and the light balloons at Trafalgar Square were incredibly simple, being effectively light bulbs scattered about that switched on and off automatically to music. Other displays which were mobile or more complex have obvious copyright problems. Should I try uploading a few? --Fæ (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed neon displays are definitely covered by the freedom of panorama. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Saito-0067.jpg

Whenever I post here it seems I come off looking silly but learn something. So here goes. This is one of those "too professional to not set off red flags" photos. The only attribution is that the source is enwiki. I'm not seeing anything in the logs there to say if it was deleted. At least it doesn't seem to have been deleted under this file name. It's been around for a decade, so of course it's everywhere online, although who can say which came first. So... what to do? GMGtalk 19:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The actual file was en:File:Saito-0067.JPG. It was claimed to be own work of User:87xy5zf02. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I figured it had probably been NowCommons deleted, but hadn't found the actual log entry. That... seems unlikely on its face as a source, just going by how similar images usually go. But it's so old I'm just not sure if much can be conclusively said to contradict the claim. GMGtalk 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Nikiforov.jpg

Can someone decide if this Russian image is licensed correctly. I can't read Russian. If it is, please feel free to mark it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

They allow everybody to reproduce their copyrighted materials provided that a link to the original source is included. However I found no evidence that that their content is placed under any CC license. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Singapore government publications?

Does anyone know what the legal/copyright situation is for Singapore government publications such as vital records? None of the current country-specific tags for Singapore seem to apply to government publications.--Muzilon (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like, in general, Singapore government works are 70 years from publication. However that was non-retroactively extended from 50 to 70 in 2004, so it may be works published before 1954. Artistic works other than engravings are 70 (previously 50) years from creation, and that would include photographs. (Photographs taken after mid-1987 are 70 years from publication, but that distinction won't matter for a long time.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm specifically wondering about Singaporean birth/death/marriage certificates, and whether Singapore has any data protection/privacy laws about such being uploaded to Wikipedia.--Muzilon (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I may have answered my own question. Singapore's Personal Data Protection Act 2012 says (link):

(4) This Act shall not apply in respect of —

(a) personal data about an individual that is contained in a record that has been in existence for at least 100 years; or
(b) personal data about a deceased individual, except that the provisions relating to the disclosure of personal data and section 24 (protection of personal data) shall apply in respect of personal data about an individual who has been dead for 10 years or fewer.
Assuming Singaporean vital records are covered by this legislation, it would probably not be permitted to publish a birth/death/marriage certificate online unless the parties named have been dead for 10 years, or the birth/death/marriage happened 100 years ago.--Muzilon (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Central Philippine University Iloilo Mission Hospital Banner.png

This might not be "own work", but it's probably something which can be converted to {{PD-textlogo}} even for the Philippines. I cannot, however, find a source for it anywhere which show the file being used. Can the licensing be changed to PD without a source showing it being used anywhere? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: What about File:Central_Philippine_University_College_of_Nursing_Banner.png? I've made the same changes to it Yann made to the hospital banner file, but I can't seem to find either of them anywhere besides on Wiki. I guess the copyright is taken care of though. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: It should be the same licensing wise per Yann, but whether these logos are something actually used by the hospital or just something a user created and then added to the Wikipedia article is something I'm not sure about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Mir Ahmad Taghavi Website

There's an Iranian website which publishes its contents under CCSA3. Can old photos published by the website be accepted, considering that they are published for the first time? --Mhhossein talk 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Provided we believe they have the right to license them under that license, that they are actually the copyright holder or have the right license from the copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks, but do we need to prove it via asking for a signed deal, for example?--Mhhossein talk 18:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's one overall rule. The question is do we believe that? I don't read Farsi, so I can't tell whether they seem to be believably making the claim or whether they're clearly just being careless or what.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User:COMM museum

This user has recently (2018-01-18) joined Commons and uploaded four files. As a user name this new user has adopted the name of a museum. The uploaded photo's are of that same museum and accredited as work of his/her own: Special:Contributions/COMM museum. On the Dutch language Wikipedia the user has edited the article on the museum: nl:COMM (museum) I am having doubts about the authenticity of this user as a representative of the museum. Besides, it think it is not permitted for institutions to perform edits in the articles about themselves. What is the procedure that should be followed in this case? --oSeveno (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Afaik people are allowed to edit their own articles, but they should not hide the fact that they are and their edits need to be checked to make sure they meet NPOV requirements. I see no reason why institutions wouldn't be allowed the same thing. Something is wrong here though, three out of four photos are from Gerard-Jan Vlekke and one is from Dennis Knol, yet all four are marked as "own work" so he (they?) may need to see a doctor about that. I asked them using the contact form on their website. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I didn't even notice the names of the photographers in the exif data. Thank you for approaching them about the permission status. --oSeveno (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC).
This account belongs to the museum. They claim to own the pictures. (which is obviously possible if they hired the photographers) I've given them a link to the release generator. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
you should send them to m:Wikimedia Nederland, and nl:Wikipedia:GLAM - they can show them some GLAM love. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Koffi Olomide.jpg

Google shows this image was part of a studio session but can't find the name of photographer. Uploaded by Mopao Mokonzi,which means: [4] and fans agree:i-was-wondering-what-mopao-mokonzi-meant-because. On the precautionary principal, think it should be deleted unless a OTRS can be sent in. P.g.champion (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

See User_talk:Donnel~commonswiki and Special:Log/Donnel~commonswiki. Just a bunch of red links, not a good sign. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Gut reaction is that this is appearing to have been uploaded on single purpose paid editor account simply for promotional purposes (who switched user names) – and long abandoned (26 May 2012). So no chance of ever getting up-loader to send in a OTRS. Page User talk:Donnel~commonswiki might as well be deleted as nothing worth while exists if the authorship of this image can not be established. Put it up for deleation under incomplete licensing information. P.g.champion (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

File:ElaineArnold1927.jpg and File:ElaineArnold .jpg

I need an expert advice – {{PD-1923}} does not apply to these photos, but perhaps {{PD-US-no notice}} does? --jdx Re: 04:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that post-1923 New York Times was published without notice. Especially as the 1919 edition has a notice. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding that 1919 article: I'm pretty sure the Times didn't originally stamp those copyright notices at the bottom of each article: it's an artifact of the digitization process: see [5]. -Animalparty (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Flags of Ethiopian Regions

Quite a few flags in this category raise particular concerns that I'd like to get some other opinions on before I send them all to DR. Copyright in Ethiopia lasts 50 years from the date of publication if the author is unknown or 50 years after the death of the author if known. A number of these flags seem to not fit that. A few of them have specific dates on them. For example File:Et afaria.png is said to have been used starting in 1994 (interestingly that one has had two DRs on it already but for obsolete reasons not for copyright reasons). Many of these flags are in use on well over a dozen articles so I wanted to get some other opinions before I send them all to DR. Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

All of these flags are also tagged as copyright ineligible. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, we all know that the tags on images are not always correct, Ruslik0. That is why I brought them here. To ask opinions. Technically they have no US copyright, true, but I'm more concerned about the copyright in Ethiopia. --Majora (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about File:Logo_of_MSI_FUNTORO,_Jan_2018.png

Good day! Recently I uploaded this Logo to WIKIPEDIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_MSI_FUNTORO,_Jan_2018.png But I encountered a problem when I want to use FUNTORO Logo in FUNTORO article in Russian-wikipedia.

What I should do if I want the logo can be used in another article?
1.Write a letter to wiki-admin to request them make the image free to others?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#E-mail_template_for_release_of_rights_to_a_file
2.Upload the FUNTORO Logo in wikicommons in template "PD-textlogo"?
In a word, how to make FUNTORO logo like this?:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sony_logo.svg Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by B3581475 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

B3581475 (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is now everywhere. @Clindberg: told you on Template_talk:PD-textlogo it's PD-textlogo (but is not sure about Taiwan copyright), @Incnis Mrsi: told you on User_talk:B3581475 it's not. I'm with Clindberg on this and also not sure about Taiwan. @Ronhjones: told you about the same on his talk page. Your upload log is telling me you should probably stop uploading files. I don't know what those other files are that you uploaded, but at least that Funtoro logo should have been given a deletion request instead of speedy deletion. I guess you need to upload the file to ru.wikipedia.org. If they don't allow files to be uploaded locally you probably need to forget this. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

William Hitchcock photo

This is an odd case, which I can't get my head round. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 25 for the initial discussion. The question I can't answer is whether this image is PD in both the UK and the US. It seems to be PD in the UK on the basis of the Copyright Act 1842, because it is presumed to have been taken in 1900, which would keep it under copyright until 1943. However, if the Copyright Act 1911 applies, then it would have been PD from 1951 onwards. The problem (as pointed out by @SlimVirgin: (the uploader) is that the earliest evidence of publication appears to be 1981, when it seems the heirs of Alfred Hitchcock provided some photos to the writer of the biography. Does this preclude it from being a 1923 exception in the US? Could one of the UK PD tags apply? Green Giant (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: thanks for opening the discussion. According to the Hirtle chart, under "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.", it depends on whether it was first published with a copyright notice. The earliest known publication is apparently Michael Haley (1981). The Alfred Hitchcock Album. New York: Prentice-Hall. I haven't seen a copy of that book yet. Haley credits the British Film Institute/National Film Archive/Still Library. I wrote to the British Film Institute on 18 January, but they haven't replied so far. SarahSV (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If it was published by Prentice-Hall, the book was published with copyright notice, and I'd be surprised if the image itself didn't have separate notice. It's complex, and somewhat dependent on common law rules, but unpublished works never lost copyright in theory in the US before 2002, no matter where they were created, so there's a very good chance the publication created a US copyright on the work of the longer of life+70 or until 2047.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant and Prosfilaes: the author is unknown. According to the Hitchcock Zone, the image was published by Prentice-Hall in 1981, crediting the image to the British Film Institute/National Film Archive/Still Library. No mention of copyright. SarahSV (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... if the image was in the BFI collection prior to Haley’s book, then doesn’t that count as publication? As @SlimVirgin: says the author is unknown, indeed I’m leaning towards the idea that the photographer was hired to do this job and consequently the copyright might belong to Hitchcock's father, who died in 1914 (according to the Alfred Hitchcock article). The more I think about it, I think it is likely that William (and possibly his wife) made the creative decisions behind this photo e.g. dressing up in this way, hiring a pony for the day, standing in front of the shop. I think it is less likely that a photographer was wandering the streets of London and thought "Cor blimey! That family will make for a good photo." I think this photo is PD in the US. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: How old would say the boy was? Larger version here. SarahSV (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Well I'm no pediatrician but he looks about 10-12 (which is what that wiki suggests), based purely on an estimate that if he was stood up, the top of his head would probably have been somewhere between his dad's shoulder and the top of his dad's shirt pocket. I have a family photo taken on my 11th birthday, which shows me reaching just below my dad's shoulder. Not a very precise science though. I would agree with the estimation of 1900, because of the uniforms and the lifting of the Mafeking siege in that year. Green Giant (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I was wondering whether it could be 1897 because of the flags above the shop. The curled-up ones look like flags from Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. That would have made the boy 7 or 8. From the WP article: "The Queen's Diamond Jubilee procession on 22 June 1897 followed a route six miles long through London and included troops from all over the empire." Not sure how to explain the uniforms, though, but they're not easy to explain if it's 1900 either. SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The fact the image was in the BFI collection indicates it might have been published, but not necessarily. A work merely being available in a library means nothing. If the copyright holder is an unknown author, then common law copyright was probably lost by the time it was published. If the copyright holder was Hitchcock's father, then it would have been first published in the US in 1981 with a proper copyright notice (it didn't need a separate one for the photo) and thus would be copyright until 2047 in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: the author is unknown and at this point that seems unlikely to change. Are you certain about your point that no separate copyright notice is needed for the photograph? That would mean that any book publishing a photograph for the first time creates a copyright or extends a copyright regarding that photograph, so long as copyright of the book is known. SarahSV (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no separate copyright notice is needed. The law is completely clear there. "Creates" is wrong; all this law requires a book be published before 2002, at which point unpublished works were still in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If the publication in 1981 counts as "published with notice", then, if I've understood the Hirtle chart correctly, the image is PD in 2020 if taken in 1900, or was PD in 2017 if taken in 1897. The relevant section is "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." --> "1978 to 1 March 1989. Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period" = "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". The previous entry is "70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first." I infer from that that copyright in this image expires 120 years from creation, if the publication in 1981 counts as "published with notice". SarahSV (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Being available to the public in a public archive has always counted as publication. Retrospective publication rights cannot be credibly claimed, and Wikimedia Commons can and should ignore hypothetical claims for 19th century works as well below the "significant doubt" threshold. --Fæ (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Fae: thanks. To what extent does "published" mean "published with the authority of the copyright holder"? If it doesn't refer to that authority, then anyone could publish anything and create a copyright. And how does that work when an author is unknown (and unknowable)? SarahSV (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It is not our responsibility to make increasingly thin hypothetical arguments to find insignificant doubt. Occam's razor applies, and I see no reason to imagine past publication was illegal without evidence. Copying an old photo from a public archive to illustrate your book, does not give you any new claim of copyright. --Fæ (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Was it available to the public in a public archive? I'm not sure that the BFI made it publically available; even libraries that the general public has access to may have unpublished collections that the public doesn't have access to. The US is not the only nation to offer copyright to works when published; were this not a photo, it would be in copyright in the UK according to Commons:Anonymous works. I can't find any Commons mention of w:Publication right, but that would often cover 19th century works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I now see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom; it doesn't apply to photos, but if this were a non-photographic work it would very likely be in copyright in the UK. Copyright an old unpublished photo to illustrate your book does in fact give you a new copyright in most of Europe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
"The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". 120 years from creation, or 31 December 2047 if that is greater. So 31 December 2047.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The BFI is a charity, not a image retailer. It does not have secret archives, only archives open to the public. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The Library of Congress is not an image retailer, either, and has a copy of The Day the Clown Cried, because they were willing to not show it until 2024. I doubt that BFI would have refused the same offer. As per American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, an exhibition with strict restrictions on copying would not be a publication, so neither would availability in an archive with restrictions on copying... and note your archive record does not actually display the image to the general public. In 1980, could you take your camera to the BFI Reuben Library and copy a photo in their collection? If the answer is no, then it was not published.
If the copyright was held by unknown, then I'd say any common law copyright is gone. If the copyright was held by Hitchcock's father, I don't see any reason to think it was published beforehand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, how did the 1981 author get permission? If the BFI only restricted copying unless a fee was paid, that is the same as offering it to everyone (i.e. publication). The 1981 author would have needed to get permission from the (U.S.) copyright holders. If not, it would still technically be unpublished, and a term of 120 years from creation. Since the photo was PD in the UK in 1981, permission would not have needed to be sought, so that doesn't seem terribly likely. Also, it possibly could have been published immediately, by U.S. rules. It's rare that an author could receive money for a work and not have it published per the U.S. definition (i.e. it would likely not be limited publication). If it was a commissioned work, the Hitchcock family would likely have been the first copyright owner per the older UK rules, which could prevent publication by U.S. rules though. Same if the photo was taken by a family member. I don't think the 2047 date is very likely at all. I think it would be either long-ago published by the photographer by selling it to the family, or possibly upon donation to the BFI (if copying was restricted only by fee), or is still technically unpublished (meaning it will expire in 2021, if the 1900 date is correct). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is the archive record at the BFI http://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceStills/111085
I have no doubt this is PD as the photographer has been unknown for 120 years. The BFI mention no special restrictions, no copyright restrictions, only a standard reproduction fee is requested if you want an official copy from the public archive. The archive predates all other sources mentioned so far as they were the source for researchers. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
the persistence of creating new copyright for low risk orphan / anonymous works has created a "bad reputation", so much so, that good faith uploaders will go to wikipedia first. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrongful implication of copyvio

This deletion is partially substantiated by absent permission, so I don’t seek to overturn it. But the sysop failed to mention that the netcopyvio accusation is wrong – a similar but not identical photo. Communication on user_talk led to nothing of value. Are such closures desirable? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two similar images, one of them (File:Dounia_BOUZAR) is clear copyvio. I think, this implies, that we cannot COM:AGF over COM:PCP here. User is still able to upload full resolution version or contact OTRS to prove their copyright.
But even if the other image was not present here, the similarity about time/place/person among these photos implies COM:PCP and is a reason for (at least) requesting an OTRS permission. Ankry (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
What do you know about time? Dounia could wear the same earrings and cloth, the place might be her apartment or working cabinet where few possibilities for placement of a camera exist, and human hairs shift only by ≈ 0.5 mm/day. Same person – do you mean the same subject, or ? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
yes - since there is not AGF, you should redirect it to PCP, or mark it historical. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: could you refrain from sarcasm, please? BTW look at an ongoing, clearly nonsensical copyvio accusation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
hey, that is not sarcasm: the response to you about a nonsense copuvio is - "PCP trumps AGF" - that is my experience, is it yours? why then persist in the false pretense of good faith when it is proven there is none in this case? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
We are talking about this image (from cache). File was uploaded here november 2016, https://buzzles.org/2016/09/26/interview-dounia-bouzar-pour-daesh-la-chair-fraiche-narrive-plus/ is from september 2016 and contains https://buzzlesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/dounia-bouzar.jpg. That should have been given as a rationale, and it really wasn't hard to find. (three minutes later) http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/07/30/le-quebec-est-un-modele-a-suivre is probably the source. (online anyway, "Photo d'archives" it says) Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi Dinar: Own work

Can someone take a look at the ~100 Iraqi banknotes uploaded by ImAhmedYousif? All of the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA and sourced as "Own work" and that does not sound accurate. If he has such an impressive collection and scanned all of them, well that's great, but if not, then these have to be deleted? // sikander { talk } 18:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sikander: why do you wary of invalid license tags by one ImAhmedYousif but not of this clear copyvio? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I hadn't seen that particular image. Please mark it as copyvio. Thanks. // sikander { talk } 19:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: , why is that such a clear copyvio? The username is "Buynewdinar" and http://www.buynewdinar.com/faqs.html has a lower resolution image. And how is one supposed to know if banknotes are copyrighted without looking up the copyright info for the country? If we focus on copyright here (the image could be considered advertising but that's another matter) one could argue the actual artworks on the bill are COM:DM. You could blur the tractor, the bloke and some other details and it's still a useful image. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: what the shit are you doing, indeed? Suffering star-struck after this? “No permission” means “no demonstrable permission”. If one registered as Microsoft.com, then what would we say about uploads by it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: What the shit are you doing indeed. For Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Koffi_Olomide.jpg you say proof is needed it isn't free (even though it's rather suspicious), but for this image which has a lower resolution on the buynewdinar site, appears to have been uploaded here before it was used on buynewdinar, a domain that btw was registered just a few months before and is no massive business like Microsoft, an image clearly not too professionally made, long story short it being pretty damn plausible it's just a guy with a small business who uploaded his file here before using it on his site and we have no reason whatsoever to question that.
Now from THAT guy you demand an OTRS, but a photo from a musician that appears to have been made by a professional and is uploaded in low resolution does not require any OTRS?
And you ask what the shit I am doing? Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Scanning does not create new copyright.
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iraq All government works published prior to 1974 are PD in Iraq.
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#United_States if the URAA date for Iraq is also 1996 (is it?) all government works published prior to 1966 are PD in the US. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  Comment These files are definetely not CC-BY-SA. This should be corrected. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: that is correct. Is there some sort of tool to select all those files (or all files in a category, I could just move the newer notes into a subcat) and change the license information for all files at once? Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

I some found photos from Dante Alighieri's book in the Museo Mitre in Argentina. Can I upload them? SlowManifesto (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the official Flickr account of Ministry of Culture (Argentina) (see here) SlowManifesto (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@SlowManifesto: https://www.flickr.com/photos/culturaargentina/39842068462/in/album-72157689737707462/ license is BY-SA. (but you should check to make sure this applies to all images in this album) So the answer is yes. If you also want it as public domain or show it like just pages (without hands), you will have to (request to) take the images from the book and present them as if they were scans. Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop could probably help you. Also take a look at Commons:Flickr2Commons. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks a lot. SlowManifesto (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Final Fantasy TCG Side by Side Reverse.jpg

I'm not sure how Commons treats imagery found on playing/trading cards. Are such cards considered COM:TOYS or are they utilitrian objects and only the logos, etc. found on them matter? While I think the uploader can license the photo of the cards they took as "own work", I'm not sure about the licensing of the logo on the backs of the cards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The object shown in the image above is {{Pd-ineligible}} or {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Milan Aćimović

Could Commons host this image? Part of the source page Google translates as "This is a photograph of an anonymous author issued before January 1, 1954, created in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. According to the 1978 Copyright Act, such works are public good.". If we can upload it here, what would be the best copyright/license tag(s)? -- Begoon 03:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Don’t know, but you should look at template talk: PD-Yugoslavia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Apache Licensed Material Design icons in GUI screenshots

Many recent websites use Google's Material Icons in their GUI. These icons are licensed under Apache License 2.0, although they used to be available under CC BY 4.0 until 2016 (as evidenced here). I have a vendor that is ready to release a screenshot of their website under a free license on Wikimedia Commons, but the website's GUI uses some Material Icons. How shall I proceed with these icons? Can I declare the whole to be under CC BY 4.0, because Apache License is not copyleft (and should I mention the separate license for the icons in that case)? I have not found any claim whether CC BY 4.0 and Apache License 2.0 are compatible in this direction, but I am currently convinced that this is indeed the case. Any thoughts? --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

vesuvius picture

A picture of the Vesuvious volcano taken from the Pompeii forum is my picture and i have not authorized it's use. I will allow it's use if I am given credit. and the date of submission is all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.32.158.242 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Waxman Photo 1.jpg

As this image has been published many times before, I would be happier if the up-loader sent in an OTRS. Any comments as to my next step? Stephen_Waxman, prof-stephen-waxman. EXIF shows it was taken 2002:01:01 16:40:37 [6]. The up-loader’s chosen user name could also create confusion. P.g.champion (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The uploader is clearly associated with Waxman. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
As this is newbie who may require a little help, have emailed him thus:

Hi Sgwaxman and welcome to Wikimedia. We are concerned that as your image of Dr. Stephen G. Waxman is an old one and one that has previously been published elsewhere, you may have picked the wrong copyright notice on your first attempt at uploading. Therefore, I am taking steps to have it deleted. This give you seven days grace to add some information to your user page here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sgwaxman
What we need to know is who took the photograph (to clarify copyright ownership). Also, what would also help us, is to know if you chose your user name because that was the first thing to pop into your head or whether you have some personal or professional relationship with Stephen Waxman. This need not included any confidential information. Just the gist, so we can help guide you to select a legally correct copyright licence.
Hopefully,this will not put you off uploading more images. Yours etc.

A bit verbose I know but that is all I can think of saying. P.g.champion (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination from November

Hi, I am not sure this is the right place for my problem, but I'll try. In November I nominated two pictures for deletion that seem clearly to be violating privacy/copyright. It is a selfie taken at what looks like a private party in which a child is also present. Go here. There is an accompanying derivative photo here without the child, but I find it hard to believe that Vladislav Doronin has given his permission to have this picture up on Commons given that he is no longer dating Naomi Campbell. Even worse, this picture is being used in several other Wiki projects even though it seems clear that this picture does not have permission to be on Commons. Is there something I dont understand that is keeping this picture up on Commons despite its copyright violation? Or is it just a matter of time before the picture is taken down? Thanks for clarifying. Here are the other places the picture appears:

DaniellaJ13E (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@DaniellaJ13E: Please see my comment on the deletion request page. Green Giant (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Matthias Kern.jpg|Matthias Kern

Can I be safe, this image (Matthias Kern) is made by the person it shows and is free to use? --Grim (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, no, you can't. Though upload-patrol didn't find any evidence for copyvio, it still cannot be excluded. However, in this case it's unlikely. To be absolutely sure, you would neeed to contact the depicted person, which is indeed possible, as he works as professor at an university in Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Pressefoto JuttaPaulus 2017.jpg

If this image is free, please consider passing it. If not, please do a DR. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I have contacted the uploader directly. --Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, the Rhineland-Palatinate appears to be more image friendly than most but they require attribution – which may or may not meet WC requirements. Here is their website:[7] . Ask User talk:Hippochron to Email them, and ask if this image can be released under a WC acceptable license. It is a good image and Jutta Paulus has a WP article about her. Yet if Hippochron is unwilling- then delete. Why should we do all the work? P.g.champion (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Who is Hippochron? Uploader was Catrin Mueller and I think I could RL-identify her. --Túrelio (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Whoops! P.g.champion (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Legally forbidden from using someone's work

I received an email saying in big red text that I am legally forbidden from using that person's works. I just want to raise awareness to those wanting to request permission from others. For the past months, I have been able to receive permissions to use other people's images, like File:Maryam Mirzakhani in Seoul 2014.jpg and File:Daniel Aaron interview 8min 35sec.jpg. However, the email legally barring me from using that person's works indicates a potential risk (major or minor?) of seeking someone else's work. Not only it affects me, this would affect other editors relying on OTRS service.

I do not know whether I can reveal that person's name; if it is necessary, I'll reveal it. George Ho (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: I don't understand. "risk of seeking someone else's work", what does that mean? You got a mail with big red text from OTRS or a copyright holder? You reached out to the copyright holder first or they contacted you? Did you upload the image in question? - Alexis Jazz 22:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
A copyright holder, and I didn't upload that image any of the copyright holder's works/images yet. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC); modified, 00:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
With hundred of images being uploaded daily and with few reviewers, it is statisticaly certain that wires will get crossed from time to time.Welcome to the club where things don't always happen perfectly a 100% of the time. P.g.champion (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I can email you a email saying in big red text that you have no right to use the Mona Lisa. There was (or is) a woman running around extracting royalties based on her claim to the American rights to Sherlock Holmes, which the Doyle estate denies (and a court just told the Doyle estate they're overclaiming their rights in the US, where the original stories are mostly out of copyright.) Just based on what you're saying, it's impossible to say whether we or anyone else has a legitimate problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
All right. It's a work made in 1970s, so there... I hope? And I feared that, if anyone else tries to contact that same person, the copyright holder would contact one's own attorneys and legally forbid them to use one's own works. George Ho (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
A random person can not legally forbid you to do anything. In most jurisdictions, they would have to go to court and get an injunction to get anything binding, which can be hard to get unless it's a clear in-process violation; if there's a chance you could claim fair use or any similar exception, or change your mind about how you were going to use it, the judge would probably refuse to give that injunction until the case was more clearly defined. At which point you could give that to your lawyers, and if you had a case, they would go to court and argue that, at very least, the injunction was premature. If there is a court case here, you can point us to the court docket.
I don't see how anyone can care if that's all the details you're willing to give us. That there exists some work on Commons where emailing someone, who may or may not have any legal interest in the work, got you back big red text, isn't very surprising, and there's nothing to be done about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Generally speaking, you upload something to Commons means you upload something to the US. Rules of Commons are irrelevant in that case. If the work is not free in the country of origin or fair use, you didn't break any law. - Alexis Jazz 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: You have to respect the laws of the country you upload from, that's why we have the "country of origin" requirement, as 99% of works are uploaded from their country of origin (random figure, but I would be surprised if that's not the case). Regards, Yann (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: That is the reason? I upload all kinds of crap not from my country. 99% of works uploaded from the country of origin? 60-70% or so seems like a safer bet. I uploaded MTV logos (US, PD in the US but possibly not PD where I upload from), an Iraqi banknote, Bernard-René Jourdan de Launay is from France (but was his image made there as well? nobody knows), mplayer icon (David Vignoni, Italian), Medion logos (German), Naomi Campbell (photo of a British model taken in Switzerland by a Russian), office of the first lady emblem (US, PD-gov in the US but I don't upload from the US), Marta Etura (probably recorded in Spain), some Sheffield map (probably made by a Commons users from the UK).. You are wrong. You have to be. Because if you are not, the policy is broken. - Alexis Jazz 08:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is guessestimate. Anyway, the huge majority of works are uploaded from their country of origin, or from the uploader's country of origin. If Commons is the first publication, it doesn't really matter. Also, there is much greater chance that a work will be used outside Wikimedia by someone from the same country. This rule is made to protect uploaders and reusers. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No, not entirely true. Well, according to Commons:General disclaimer, WMF is bound by US laws because its servers are located in the US. Commons:Copyright rules says that a work must be free in both the US and its source country to host a work. COM:TOO also explains which works to host and/or not to host, depending on originality. George Ho (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Almost forgot, what you said above is true for US-published works. George Ho (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Now I'm unsure. George Ho (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

These are Commons rules. If somebody wants to sue you, they will probably have to sue you in the US. If I live in Italy and Italy has no fair use laws, I could still upload something to Wikipedia as fair use without being breaking the law. Compare: if I live in New Zealand where copyright is life+50 (instead of life+70) and I upload a work that is PD in NZ but copyrighted in the US to Commons, I could be sued in the US and I should probably cancel my vacation in Nebraska. - Alexis Jazz 08:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that you sent somebody a request to license something for Commons, and they declined the request with the given wording? --ghouston (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes... Well, that photographer/copyright holder gave me one email as a simple decline message. Then the person gave me another email, which I mentioned in OP, serving as "legal evidence" forbidden me to use the person's works that the same person created. The copyright holder must have forwarded my email to the attorney(s). --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC); edited, 03:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, as said before, I haven't uploaded that (living) person's works yet, and I don't intend to do so. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
What type of image were you requesting permission for? A photo of the individual in question? A photo of something they created? In the first case, there's probably nothing which can be done except to try and find another image since a non-free image of a living person is almost never accepted per en:WP:NFCC#1. In the second case, uploading the file as non-free content might be an option as long as you can show how it meets all ten non-free content use criteria. Permission of the copyright holder is not really needed for non-free content, so not sure what they can do to stop that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
A photo of one specific deceased individual. At least I found another photo from another copyright holder. George Ho (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC); specified, 04:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: those ten non-free use criteria are for files uploaded locally to Wikipedia, not for Commons. - Alexis Jazz 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know that Alexis Jazz, and I think George understands that as well. However, I probably should've clarified that for others who might not be as familiar with non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I have figured it out. When you said "a potential risk (major or minor?) of seeking someone else's work" you meant someone else's permission instead of work.
You asked Mystery Copyright Holder for permission to use some of their work on Commons. They first send you one mail saying "no". After that you got a second mail, either from the copyright holder or their lawyer (I'm not sure) saying
"NO AND IF YOU DO IT ANYWAY WE WILL BONE YOUR DOG"
Oh well. Same message, not as polite. - Alexis Jazz 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you got it right.... though I found the above text entirely amusing ;) (even when it's not literally and exactly what that mysterious person said, and the mysterious person didn't use ALL CAPS). BTW, I should have said "seeking that person's permission to use his/her work," but what you said is also fine. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Commons broken?

It seems like when it comes to permission, it's not copyright or even lawsuits that bother us - it's just the rules of Commons. For example, take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Koffi Olomide.jpg. Incnis Mrsi, a respected user as far as I can tell, is strongly advocating the image to be kept. Even though it's not really plausible we actually have permission. There is no real proof we do or do not have permission, but all signs are indicating we don't. As @P.g.champion: states it: "It just means the unloader clicked a CC license and no editors picked it up and questioned it at the time and so left it to contaminated the internet. If too many of these examples pass under our radar it could make WC look like a copyright-washing-site.". That's exactly what's happening. When I find something on Commons, I do not blindly assume the licensing information to be correct. But the Koffi Olomide picture can now be found on many sites and they credit Commons.

Another case: File talk:Iraqi Dinar 2014 25000 banknote.jpg. There is no real reason to question if there is permission for this file. Forget about the banknote itself for this case (which is possibly DM or could be made DM, but that's not what we're talking about), this is just about the annotations added by the user. All signs indicate this file is legitimate. But now we are forcing an OTRS on it. Why? Now it may be deleted because the uploader hasn't been active here in a long time so they probably just won't be bothered or not even get the notification. If the user has a different mail address now, is currently on vacation for a week, ignores mail from Wikimedia because they haven't been active here in a long time or never even got an e-mail for this (is this template guaranteed to trigger an e-mail to be sent?) we will not hear from the user and the image will be deleted. If the user is like "Wtf, what is OTRS? Forms? Spam? I gave you the picture, what the hell more do you want?", same thing. It will be deleted not because there is any permission issue, but because somebody forced an OTRS on this file for no obvious reason.

One more case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ilse DeLange Live.png. This file has been deleted, but not thanks to our rules and regulations. An IP-user who turned out to actually be the copyright holder nominated it for deletion. The file had been here for more than half a year and has even been printed on a T-shirt without permission because it was shown as "creative commons" here. I do wonder who is responsible for the damage in such a case? It's only because I investigated it and contacted the copyright holder actively through her website that ultimately the file was removed. If I hadn't, it would probably still be here, the copyright holder would still be stressed out and Wikimedia might have been looking at a lawsuit. While this method has worked, it's by no means the standard by which we work (actively contacting the copyright holder) and I feel (now that I have learned about what OTRS is and what it does) I may even be out of line when I do things like that.

So, is Commons broken? You tell me. - Alexis Jazz 01:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think WC is broken but view it as a project that is still 'work in progress' and still evolving. One tip we could borrow from the companies that do public opinion and marketing surveys is to add a few more questions to our upload wizard as a indicator check, to the boxes being ticked later. For instance. Most of our problems appear to be with newbies. If we add an early question such as Has this image been published before? and they answer in the affirmative, then later claim further down the wizard that it is 'own work', I think we should be entailed to ask them for an OTRS to avoid future issues. A bot can then place it in a temporary category to indicate that is is not yet free to use until OTRS is received. Whilst not fool -proof and adds complexity to the wizard, it is a small step in making the the work-flow administration tasks more efficient. Regrettably, that is going to place even more pressure on the already over stretched OTRS team of reviewers, yet I think this is a step in the right direction. We could even triage the OTRS reviews. Low level reviewers could quickly skim OTRS submissions for those that still don't meet WC requirement and offer advice and feed- back to up-loaders quickly. Then pass on good OTRS's for final approval. This makes it easier for the newbie faced with a steep learning curve of WC policies. It also benefits us, for a such triage provides a division of labour so that it doesn't all fall on the shoulders of reviewers, that currently have to have a brain the size of a planet when it comes to understanding every nuance of WC policies, protocol and copyright. As Linus Torvalds is quoted as saying “"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"”. We need more eyes on this irritable problem. P.g.champion (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree. I would like to add that in the case of "Ilse DeLange Live.png" there was no bad faith. It was uploaded by a teenager who didn't even understand copyright. (but who could blame her, nobody fully understands copyright) If the wizard would ask a few simple questions (that will also help to categorize the picture) this could have been avoided. "Is this image a photo, drawing, schematic or other?" followed by "Did you take this picture yourself/draw this image yourself or did someone else take the picture/draw the image?". Today, if somebody finds a photo and crops or scales it (or takes a photo of their television screen), they may click "This file is my own work." in the upload wizard (it's not even wrong!) and years later others get to try and figure out where the image came from and clean up the mess. That is if the violation is spotted at all! If it's not, the false license will continue to contaminate this image across the web because Commons tends to show up close to the top in search engines, above the actual source. So anybody wishing to use the image is likely to end up here and use the license provided here. - Alexis Jazz 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to explain my position about Koffi_Olomide.jpg. The file was possibly uploaded due to fraud, but we can’t presently identify which person was likely injured—some professional photographer, perhaps?—and whether is s/he willing to seek correction. The accusation based on some image(s) produced in 2017 is baseless – we have to dismiss the case because see no injured party. Another kind of situation arises when we can guess very easily who is a likely rights holder. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't see that an attitude of wilful ignorance to possible injury should get us morally off the hook. Also, this a good example of why upload dates are not true guidance: File:Bénézech (1).jpg own work claimed by Olivier BETTI uploaded 1 July 2017. However... File:Alix Bénézech en 2017.jpg uploaded later on 21 October 2017 and image File:Alix Bénézech 2017-06-23 (cropped).jpg uploaded 24 octobre 2017 but this time, both with OTRS attributing copyright to Emilie Carpuat. Think I'll get the duplicates deleted once I have gotten around to updating the articles with the authorized images but that again is unnecessary work that may have been avoided with an improved wizard. Now where did I put my bottle of tranquilizers? P.g.champion (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Don’t know how said Olivier BETTI managed to steal this Alix Bénézech in 2017 from the rights holder, but IMHO this account had to be indefblocked already in 2015. Of course, the copyvioman would then register on Commons another time, but sock puppetry is off-topic here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Get your drift but in this case, he appears to be very topic limited (almost a single purpose account). Editors on WP would soon spot a matching sock -as you do when you do your laundry- and report their suspicions back here on WC. P.g.champion (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Although we (those who have contributed here on this debate so far ) represent a very small cohort of editors, think the Wisom of the crowds are kicking in. When I first joined, I was thought of as a bit of a computer-geek to be able to upload. Thankfully, it is so much easier now. However, with that comes problems, so we must still evolve and improve. Does anyone know how to take requests and suggestions for a better Wizard to Commons:Village pump/Proposals? P.g.champion (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • These first time uploaders clicking on 'Own work' are still coming quick and fast. We need filters in Wizard, sooner rather than later. It takes us many times longer to show that they are copyvios than it takes for the unloaders to swamp WC with even more copyvios. Wikimedia Commons may not be broken but it is currently hemorrhaging and bleeding to death with copyvios. WMF should be made aware that we are rapidly becoming a copyright-washing-site and funds need to be diverted into improving the Wizard. The current situation is whittling away morale so much, that we can't recruit enough overseers. It is like hitting your head against brick wall – finally one thinks that there must be something more rewarding to spend one's free time on. P.g.champion (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: I almost forgot. I started working on User:Alexis_Jazz/WIP#Upload_wizard. Input is welcome, if you want to link it when creating a proposal that's also fine. I can't make any actual changes to the wizard, but I figure it's a good idea to write down what exactly we are asking for. - Alexis Jazz 03:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Think the next step forward is to create a WC project page in which to formulate a good workable proposal. Having read User:Alexis Jazz/WIP, I don't want to take the wind out of his sails by starting this off by myself. Also, Commons:Upload_Wizard_FAQ#Why_do_you_allow_the_user_to_upload_without_first_asking_for_a_license_/_author_/_description? states:

Why do you allow the user to upload without first asking for a license / author / description? First, we're trying to get closer to the user's mental model, by providing an interface they're expecting, rather than a wall of text and fields to fill in.

That may have been fine at the start but now we know the modus operandi (or “mental model”) of the newbies, so we need more checks and balances on these first time uploads. The editor that wrote in this in Wizard FAQ may be patting himself on the back for the number of wizard uploads but I bet he is not having to separate the wheat from the chaff. Which is progressively turning WC into an ipso facto license laundering site. Perhaps we should name the project Upload Wizard proposals. P.g.champion (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: My proposal doesn't actually change that. And it's far from a wall of text, even though it might look like that when you look at User:Alexis_Jazz/WIP#Upload_wizard because you are not seeing what a user will see. The user will first upload one or more files, same as now. Then they will have to answer a maximum of 6 (usually less) simple multiple choice questions. These replace the "This file is my own work. / This file is not my own work." question. After that you go to the part of picking a license, date, etc for which I am not proposing anything. - Alexis Jazz 18:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Architecture in Iran

Hi, There are 2 open requests in COM:UDR about architecture in Iran. We need more input, specially from people who could read the law. Previous requests were closed as kept, but Jim disagrees with the conclusion. Pinging involved people @MasoodHA, Jameslwoodward, Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx, and Clindberg: Regards, Yann (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging more active Farsi speakers @4nn1l2, Mbazri, and Mhhossein: Thanks for your comments. Yann (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Architecture in Iran

Hi, There are 2 open requests in COM:UDR about architecture in Iran. We need more input, specially from people who could read the law. Previous requests were closed as kept, but Jim disagrees with the conclusion. Pinging involved people @MasoodHA, Jameslwoodward, Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx, and Clindberg: Regards, Yann (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging more active Farsi speakers @4nn1l2, Mbazri, and Mhhossein: Thanks for your comments. Yann (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  Comment This issue is not solved. (Restoring archived discussion.) Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Architecture in Iran

Hi, There are 2 open requests in COM:UDR about architecture in Iran. We need more input, specially from people who could read the law. Previous requests were closed as kept, but Jim disagrees with the conclusion. Pinging involved people @MasoodHA, Jameslwoodward, Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx, and Clindberg: Regards, Yann (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging more active Farsi speakers @4nn1l2, Mbazri, and Mhhossein: Thanks for your comments. Yann (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, finally I made my comment. --Mhhossein talk 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment This issue is not solved. (Restoring archived discussion.) Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Still pending. Yann (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/01&oldid=567279468"